Saturday, 31 October 2015

Putin Scepticism casts doubt on COP21.

Reuters Report quotes Russian President Putin  (LINK)
"...there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia..."  
President Vladimir Putin, who has offered only vague and modest pledges of emissions cuts ahead of December's U.N. climate summit in Paris. 
Russia's official view appears to have changed little since 2003, when Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians "spend less on fur coats" while "agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that".
Andrey Illarionov, Putin's senior economic adviser at the time and now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington said:
Putin's scepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his staff "did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate.  
We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited. It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded.


The Daily Caller's report goes a little further: (link)
Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud” — a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves.

US Solar Plant a carbon dioxide emitter

Previously this blog has noted that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System was 

disrupting the thriving habitat for tortoises, coyotes, kit foxes and bobcats and was vaporising birds. (Back-up link

Now we find that the plant has been a net emitter of carbon dioxide, falsely described as a carbon polluter by Fox News.

Even as the Obama administration announces another $120 million in grants to boost solar energy, new reports indicate a centerpiece of the administration's green-energy effort is actually a carbon polluter.  
Located in Southern California's Mojave Desert, the $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System benefited from a $1.6 billion Energy Department loan guarantee, and a $539 million Treasury Department stimulus grant to help pay off the loan. 
Yet it is producing carbon emissions at nearly twice the amount that compels power plants and companies to participate in the state's cap-and-trade program.  
That's because the plant relies on natural gas as a supplementary fuel. 
The Press Enterprise also reported it (and also falsely used the Pollution word:

Desert plant has pollution problem

The Ivanpah plant in the Mojave Desert uses natural gas as a supplementary fuel. Data from the California Energy Commission show that the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 – its first year of operation – to emit more than 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. 
That’s nearly twice the pollution threshold for power plants or factories in California to be required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.
Why does a solar plant need to burn Natural Gas?
Natural gas is used to preheat water that goes into boilers mounted on top of three 459-foot-tall towers at Ivanpah. This allows heat from the sun – captured by 352,000 mirrors – to make steam more quickly. The steam turns the turbines that produce electricity. 
The Ivanpah plant off Interstate 15 near the Nevada border also has auxiliary gas boilers that kick in whenever cloud cover blocks the sun.
WHY vaporise birds, threaten tortoises, coyotes, kit foxes and bobcats for a plant that produces no-so-green energy?

Friday, 30 October 2015

French Mathematicians blast AGW as “absurd, costly and pointless crusade"”.

A White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, a society of French mathematicians, is headed

"The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade." (LINK)
All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame. 
This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo.
It has become a crusade against Carbon dioxide (erroneously called carbon by the shrill) based in IPCC reports and, as the white paper says:
 taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the 'good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. 
But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments. 
Indeed so should scientists. So should journalists.

The mathematicians says that
 The crusade is absurd 
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way 'disturbed'. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. 
  • Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest.
  • Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. 
  • Extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.
The Society points out that, if the reports of the IPCC were "submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal,"..."no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPCC‘s work."

"The mastiff Liberty growls and shows its sharp teeth" (Victor Hugo: Les Châtiments [Castigations])
In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action. 
In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the 'adversarial principle'. A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out. In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence, but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted. 
It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this White Paper has been written.
See The translation of this white paper HERE (pdf).

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Cyclone Patricia: another alarmist lie.

Anthony Cox writes

The headlines said it all:

The hysteria was endless. Naturally the ABC got involved:

The ABC image clearly shows a bit of rain and medium wind gusts as Patricia hits the West tourist coast of Mexico. I have been out surfing in worse conditions than this.

At the same time as this allegedly monster cyclone Patricia was wreaking havoc on Mexico a real high category cyclone was wandering around the Pacific further out to sea. Cyclone Olaf was a genuine category 4 cyclone. But Olaf was no problem as it stayed out to sea. Patricia was the one the alarmists concentrated on because it made landfall.

But Olaf allows us to see how small Patricia really was. Cyclones obtain their energy from the sea surface. Thermal imaging of sea surface temperature shows a cooling when a cyclone passes over the ocean. 

The size of this cooling pool gives a precise picture of how big the cyclone is. RSS satellite imaging shows both Olaf and Patricia in the Pacific Ocean. Olaf starts developing West of Mexico on the 19th October and disappears on the 27th. During this period, Patricia is barely visible closer to the Western Mexico coast:

Plainly Patricia was not a category 5 cyclone. In fact the Low which struck Newcastle in April 2015 was a bigger and more destructive storm.

The annual alarmist ego fest is about to begin in Paris and the luvvies, the Shrill and the watermelons are getting into their stride. A devastating cyclone just before this annual orgy of alarmism would have been perfect for them. But like every other failed prediction and aspect of alarmism Patricia would not play ball.

Will the lies about Patricia stop the Paris farce from happening? Not a chance.

Subsidies Gone With The Wind....NOT!

In July this year, then PM Tony Abbott ordered the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to finance new wind power projects. However new PM Turnbull has different ideas:
Under Turnbull the CEFC has been transferred to the environment department and the government has apparently dropped plans to hobble its mandate by banning investments in wind farms and small scale solar and has suggested it plays an important role in its climate plans. (Link)

Previously, in Parliament, Alby Schultz had revealed some home truths about Wind Power: (link)
RECs are being issued fraudulently to $2 shelf companies that follow the model of declaring bankruptcy only to be reborn under a new name. Australia's biggest corporate collapse, Babcock and Brown in 2011, recorded losses upwards of $10 billion. Babcock and Brown Wind was then renamed Infigen Energy. 
The large majority of Australian wind farms are owned by foreign companies. That is billions of dollars going overseas to fraudulent corporations under the guise of renewable energy. Queensland's Ergon Energy confirmed to a Senate inquiry in October 2012 that energy costs would be the predominant driver of increased electricity prices due to the renewable energy target placing upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. 
We are all paying more for our electricity, and for no evidential benefit to the environment.
Then just before his time ran out, Alby said:
The snouts in the easy-money-making renewable energy trough are many and varied.  
What news of Wind Energy?

Australia's first wind farm commissioner (Link)

Wind farm commissioner Mr AndrewDyer has been tasked with referring complaints about wind farms to state authorities and to ensure that they are addressed. He will also identify priorities for monitoring wind farms and report to Parliament once a year.
As well as being a former chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, Mr Dyer has also previously been a director of US-based BrightSource Energy, which develops solar thermal technology. He currently sits on a number of boards and is a Vice Chancellor's Professorial Fellow at Monash University.

Mr Dyer has written several times on renewable energy in the past. In 2011 he suggested the equivalent of the National Broadband Corporation for clean energy, and also wrote favourably of the idea of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and other government loan and incentive schemes for renewables.

Mr Dyer told Fairfax Media he saw the role as marrying his experience working in the energy industry, including in fossil fuel, renewable and nuclear technology, and at the telecommunications ombudsman.

Malcolm Roberts: Holding my university and its staff accountable

Guest Post by Malcolm Roberts

Restoring science
Holding my University and it's staff accountable 

Summary of complaints
Summary of Empirical Evidence on climate
Malcolm Roberts' qualifications

This page aims to help restore integrity and objectivity to science and to the rule of law.

Objectivity is vital. Without it, we invite the powerful to rule using physical force, financial and industrial might, emotional intimidation, propaganda, lies, corrupt politics, ...

History shows that science's objectivity is essential for freedom, efficiency, prosperity, progress and fairness.

My complaints present conclusions from the statements and claims of university staff and from observations of their behaviour. My complaints raise allegations discussed in various 'complaint forms' and supporting documents.

Jump down to each complaint:
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's behaviour became a concern after he misrepresented science on ABC-TV in October 2010. My concern deepened after his email replies.

It deepened further in 2013 after learning that he manages the university's John Cook who helped make up a false claim that there is a consensus of climate scientists sharing his boss'

Disproving the Anthropogenic climate change lie.

Terence Cardwell 

There is no disagreement about climate change. It has existed since the first day the earth was created. The weather changes every day, sometime good, sometimes bad.

The only disagreement is that the weather is influence by the carbon dioxide generated by man, and the answer is an emphatic NO.

Since 1979 the climate alarmists, sponsored largely by the U.N. , have tried to convince us otherwise with ‘models’, predictions, future graphs, fear tactics, deliberate distortions of the truth and endless deliberate lies.
These are some of them;
  • 1.     Melting of the Himalayan mountains.
  • 2.     Seas rising up to 5 metres in the next ten years (was quoted in 1979.)
  • 3.     Over 40% of the Amazon rainforest will die.
  • 4.     Seas will turn acidic and kill the Great Barrier Reef.
  • 5.     The world average temperature will increase by at least 5 degrees Celsius.
  • 6.     100,000 people will die because they cannot grow food.
  • 7.     The Arctic and Antarctic ice caps will melt and cause the World to flood.
  • 8.     Severe weather events will become worse and more often.
  • 9.     Australia will run out of water and must build desalination plants at a cost of some 10 billion dollars. (Re Tim Flannery and his crazy predictions.)
  • 10.  Polar bears will die in their thousands.

Forty five years later not one of these predictions have eventuated, although when the summer melt comes every year to the polar caps the alarmists run around saying look, look its happening. Only to be disappointed when winter comes and they freeze over again.

The one sad exception is the glaciers that really are slowly melting. But they have been melting since long before Captain Cook’s time. He measured the glaciers in Glacier bay, Alaska when they were a further 15 kilometres down Glacier Bay and they have been melting since before then. Glaciers are a carryover from the last ice age and if we remove every trace of carbon dioxide they would continue to melt and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
I could go on to disprove every one of those ridiculous statements but all of these events depend on one supposed cause and that is Carbon Dioxide generated by man.
Proving that anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide has no effect whatsoever on out climate would immediately negate all these predictions and any event that occurs has nothing to do with man made Carbon Dioxide and is only a deceitful  greedy grab for billions of dollars and World domination by the United Nations and their cohorts.
The alarmists tells us that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere has increased from 350 to 390 parts per million in the last fifty years.
So what is the total Carbon Dioxide in out Atmosphere. Part per million means little, so lets put it in a logical comparison. We will assume it is 400 p.p.m. for simplicity. (increase of 50 parts per million over 50 years.)
Take a 12 litre bucket ( 3 gallons) and fill it to the top with water. Now add one teaspoon of water---That is the total Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere.
But that is not what they say is causing Climate Change—only that amount that has been added to the atmosphere by man and that is less than 4% of all CO2 generated.

Where naturally created CO2 is different from manmade CO2 is yet to be shown or proven.

50 p.p.m. increase in 50 years or 1 p.p.m. of CO2 added  per year i.e. 400 x 12 litres =4800 litre. Equating to one teaspoon of CO2 add to 4800 litres per year.
But that is the total amount, manmade CO2 is only 4% of that or one twenty-fifth.
Thus the amount of manmade CO2 added by the whole World is 25 x 4800 or
One teaspoon per 120,000 litres of water per year.
Australia contribution is a maximum of 1.5% of that total i.e. 120,000 x 66.66 =7.992000 litres. That is: Australia contribution of manmade CO2 is one teaspoon in 8 million litres of water per year.

Can you honestly believe a totally harmless inert gas that you breath in at 400p.p.m. and out at 40,000 p.p.m. (see link) and is essential to all plant life, has no more insulating qualities than many other gases can affect out climate in this amount.
Hydrogen for instance has 14 times more thermal conductive qualities than air. But no one mentioned that.
These figures can be easily confirmed. Judge for yourself on the figures and run them through yourselves.
Typical of some of the lies are figures quoted by someone who did not have a clue about power station operations, that were complete fabrications and lies.
Power Station boilers are a closed system and do NOT use large amounts of water. In fact almost none is lost. Cooling towers use river or lake water and is no different to evaporation elsewhere. As for using energy to create power, of course they do like everything else.
If you can find an alternative you will make billions.


Sunday, 25 October 2015

COP21 is not about climate. It is about power, Glory, and Turnbull making More Money

2UE’s Weekend Winners George and Paul  interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton about the prophecy revealed on this blog in our post last February: The Push to get rid of Tony Abbott

George: The prophecy has comes true.

CM: Well, I’m very sad that is has come true….the UN and the very powerful financial vested interests who are making money – I call them the profiteers of doom – these people were going to get those two stand-outs, Stephen Harper in Canada, who, just like Tony Abbott, has studied the question of global warming, understood that it was rubbish and actually had unwound much of the environmental nonsense that had gone on in Canada; and so they were determined to get rid of him. 
And how did I know all this because Sir David King, the accident prone chemist, who, for some reason has now been appointed the Climate Change Ambassador to the British Government, going around and briefing countries who aren’t yet signed up to the  UN…He gave a statement to the Environmental Committee of the House of Commons in May Last Year and he was asked by the then dreadful chairman of the committee, Tom Yeo who was making half a million a year from Chairmanships of various Wind Company boon-doggles [boondoggle is a project that is considered a useless waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations.]  and had an enormous conflict of interests – he was asked:
How many stand-outs are there? And how’s the vote going to go in Paris next year?
and King said: Every country in the world was lined up except two… (Back-up LINK)
One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it.  
The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN,  will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term.
…..we are increasingly being ruled by this totalitarian Leftism. Environmentalism is the

Saturday, 24 October 2015


A great post on POWERLINE by Stephen Hayward:


When I make charts and graphs, I generally make it a practice to scale the vertical axis of a chart from zero (0) to the upper bound of the range. Compressing a chart’s vertical axis can be grossly misleading.
Stephen says that the usual warming chart looks like this:

Stephen then writes:
Whoa! We’re all gonna fry! 
But what if you display the same data with the axis starting not just from zero, but from the lower bound of the actual experienced temperature range of the earth? I had never thought of this until an acquaintance sent it along today:
Average Annual Global Temperature 1880-2015 
Source: NASA Data.

All delegates to #COP21 should see this graph. Is it worth wasting billions on this minute rise in temperature. #AGWHoax #Scam #ClimateChange #IPCC 

For more of Stephen's post : See POWERLINE

H/t GC