Saturday, 31 December 2016

Reducing Sunspot activity indicates Global COOLING.

From NASA: (link)

Sunspot Numbers

In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

Environmental Consultant 
Edmund Contoski, writing for the Heartland blog, says that The Sun, Not CO2, Determines our Climate.
The chart [above] clearly shows a weakening trend of sunspots in solar cycles 22, 23 and 24. These are the latest in a sequence dating from 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Note that the peak of solar cycle 24, which occurred in 2014, is only about half that of solar cycle 22, which peaked about 1989. 
This portends global cooling—not global warming. Sunspots are dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years. In 2008, during the solar minimum of cycle 23, there were 266 days with no sunspots. This is considered a very deep solar minimum. You can check out pictures of sunspots—or their absence—day after day for recent years at (Source - bold added)

After explaining Sunspot activity, Edmund Contoski continues
After about 210 years, sunspot cycles “crash” or almost entirely die out, and the earth can cool dramatically. These unusually cold periods last several decades. Of greatest concern to us is the Maunder Minimum, which ran from 1645 to 1715. Below is a chart that shows the paucity of sunspots during this time. Some years had no sunspots at all. 

The astronomer Sporer reported only 50 sunspots during a 30-year period, compared to 40,000 to 50,000 typical for that length of time. 
Since the Maunder Minimum, a less extreme but still significantly below-average period of cooler temperatures occurred during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830), also shown on the graph. 
At least as far back as 2007—before Cycle 23 had bottomed—a Russian solar physicist, predicted what we are seeing now. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, noting that solar irradiance had already begun to fall, said a slow decline in temperatures would begin as early as 2012-2015 and lead to a deep freeze in 2050-2060 that will last about fifty years. 
Read More HERE 

Tuesday, 27 December 2016

Sorry State of Australian Science Curriculum

Letter from Dr Judy Ryan
re the
Sorry State of the 
Australian Science Curriculum

Dear Minister Simon Birmingham and all Educators,

We are writing to you to express our deep concern re the politicisation and subsequent deterioration of  Australia’s  Science  Curriculum.

Our students are now ranked lower by comparison to developing nations. They are also ranked lower than their peers from three decades earlier. What has gone wrong?

The evidence below indicates that almost three generations of Australians have been subjected to a subversive, pseudo-science based curriculum.

The nature in equilibrium, or Gaia, theory was not only disproven but discredited in the 70’s http://

It was replaced by Chaos theory for dynamical natural systems. It states that “In the disciplines of Meteorology .....and Biology.......Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

One only has to look at the 2009 Australian High School Science curriculum to realise that the disproven Gaia is still the order of the day in our country  To quote the bottom two lines from page 6 “Understanding systems provides the basis for appreciating the nature of equilibrium and interdependence.”

Australia now is in the situation where our politicians, the middle generation, do not have the required science background to adequately form policies on environmental issues. Hence, they rely on expert advice. Unfortunately, they have been deceived by Lysenko-like pseudo-scientists. 

 As independent scientists, we state this “ Global Cooling…. aka Global Warming….aka Climate Change is the defining issue of our time, because it is the greatest crime ever attempted against humanity.”   

It's time to fix the science curriculum across Australia. Our democracy is under threat. The average lifespans of great civilisations are only about 200 years. The progression goes like this; From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
The evidence indicates that the Australian population is in the apathy to dependence state.   We are in clear danger of slipping back into bondage via the environmental laws imposed by the corrupted IPCC and UNFCCC.

Our current predicament is exemplified by an event some of us ‘older generation’ Independent Scientists attended at the ANU Climate Change Institute.

The whole event was based on a series of surveys.  It seems that  Universities now interpret the weakest form of research, surveys, as something that can be used to influence policies and people.  Yet, in earlier times surveys were regarded as nothing more than a possible catalyst for a more robust form of investigation.

Our impression was that the whole event was a thinly disguised attempt to influence the vote of attendees towards a totalitarian form of Government at the next election.The younger panelists obviously think they have acquired knowledge via their University Education. But as discussed above, all they have been taught is pseudo-science.

Meanwhile, the silent majority of independently thinking voters out there in the real world voted in a climate skeptic Tony Abbott in Australia in 2010.  As was predicted the United Nations was successful in replacing Tony Abbott with their choice puppet Prime Minister.

But, times have changed since 2013. Climate sceptic Donald Trump has been overwhelmingly voted in as President of  America. In Australia, One Nation and other Independent parties are growing from strength to strength. We the voters successfully expressed our displeasure at the 2016 Federal elections. 

We will accept and aid ethical beginner politicians to take over the running of our nation.  We prefer that to the evil stability of the lookalike socialist tending major parties.  When we get our ethical new management team, we will start immediately to clean out the pseudo-scientists from our Universities and Scientific Institutions, just as Trump is now doing in America we will clean up the Australian National Science curriculum so that our students can once again experience the joy of learning real science.

In closing, Dr Curtis did not actually attend this event. But is happy to co-sign with me. She has been fighting, what in our humble opinion, is fraudulent academic behaviour, for more than twenty years. I for only six. If there is anything we have said that you think is untrue then please respond. We will investigate and if necessary clarify or rectify any inaccuracies.

Respectfully yours
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis

Members: World Wide Web of Independent Scientists

Saturday, 24 December 2016

A Political Fad vs National Security; A US story

Posted here to show the AGW madness is world-wide.

John Droz Jr

Get some hot chocolate and a few nutritious cookies. Now sit by the fire in your favorite chair, and mull over this Enchanting tale.

The fundamental questions we need accurate answers for are: 

  1. How does our national energy policy come about? 
  2. Is the way we’re generating it now, really in our best interest? 

The answers to those critical questions are:

1) Science is all about assisting us solving technical problems. Since our national energy policy is a highly technical matter, it should be solidly based on Science. However, instead our national energy policy has been written by lobbyists. These lobbyists represent clients: 
a) who have economic interests at stake, and/or  
b who are promoting political agendas. Any connection of our energy policy with Science is accidental. 

2) No. Lobbyist-driven technical policies benefit their clients — but are typically not good for our citizens, our economy, our military, or our environment. For example, costs end up being more than projected, benefits turn out to be less than promised, and unintended liabilities are often frequent and severe. None of these consequences should be a surprise, as they are the expected results of unscientific solutions. 

The point is that the methodology of coming up with our national technical policies is fundamentally flawed. An instructive case is what transpired with the large Desert Wind/Amazon project, currently being built in North Carolina. Here are some unsurprising results of a self-serving lobbyistdriven energy policy… 

1 - The current administration’s position appears to be that promotion of industrial wind energy is more important than maintaining our military missions, assuring military readiness, and/or protecting the lives of military personnel. 
Sample Evidence #1: See Congressman Randy Forbes persistent and insightful questions (actual page 19, but labelled as page 15) to senior Obama staff officials in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Their answers make it quite clear as to what their priorities were. 
Sample Evidence #2: The DoD Wind Clearinghouse has been given 5000+ cases where there is some type of conflict between a proposed wind project and a military facility. Only once was a wind project cancelled. 
2 - The primary justification of this aggressive wind energy promotion is that wind energy supposedly plays an integral role in reducing climate change. However, this marketing claim does not hold up under careful scrutiny. The fact is that there is zero scientific proof that wind energy makes any consequential contribution to alleviating climate change. Zero scientific proof. 

3 - Few people have any idea what a ROTHR facility is. Even fewer are aware of the critical roles that the ROTHR facility has in protecting our national security — on several key fronts, like terrorism. (BTW this Virginia facility is one of only two in the continental US.) 

4 - In its zeal to promote renewable energy, the current administration appears to knowingly have agreed to compromise our national security. They were aware of the serious potential risks the Desert Wind/Amazon project could have on the ROTHR facility, yet choose to play them down. 

5 - In their one-sided commitment to promote wind energy, the current administration did not take some reasonable precautions in this situation, that would have better protected our national security. 
Example #1: Did they insist that the Desert Wind project be moved just 20+ miles away to protect our national security? No. (This might have been a nuisance to the developer, but not an insurmountable problem. Who should be inconvenienced here: the wind developer or our military?) 
Example #2: Did they have any provisions in the DoD-Developer Agreement that would automatically shut down nearby wind turbines that caused a major disruption in the ROTHR signal? 

6 - This wind project was pushed through the NC “approval” process without any NC statewide wind energy rules or regulations being applied. (That situation has since been corrected with passed NC legislation.) 

7 - Due to this lack of oversight, a lawsuit was filed that the state should require that reasonable wind energy rules and regulation be applied to this wind project, and not let this wind project get approved on a technicality. 
The state attorney general (and now Governor-elect) Roy Cooper fought against independent environmental tests (and a military assessment) being done, and he won. So consider that irony: Governor-elect Cooper is the highest “progressive” person in NC, yet he led the fight against a reasonable environmental assessment to protect the state’s ecosystems. 
8 - The main argument made by the promoters of this wind project is that it will be an economic boon to a depressed rural area of North Carolina. 
Fact 1: our electrical energy sources are not selected due to the economics on a host community. Instead our electrical energy sources are chosen based on their reliability, true cost to ratepayers & taxpayers, proximity to demand centers, dispatchability, etc. Wind energy fairs poorly on all such metrics — which is why wind proponents try the sleight-of-hand tactic to talk instead about local taxes, local lease payments, etc. 
Fact 2: the reality is that the Desert Wind project is likely to be a substantial negative financial drain on local economies. Our webpage references the projections of independent experts who have no dog in the fight. Using their numbers results in the conclusion that the two affected NC communities could well have a net loss of $11± Million, per year! So if local economics is really of paramount importance, why don’t wind proponents ever show an objective, NET local financial impact

9 - The electricity economics of this project were so bad, that all three NC utility companies (Duke, Progress and Dominion) declined to buy its power. The NC Democrat Governor at the time (following the national lead), interceded and tried to cajole the utilities to accept this higher-cost electricity. To their credit, they refused to pay for this expensive electricity. 
The only way this project survived was because Amazon stepped in to buy the expensive Desert Wind electricity. Even though Amazon was alerted to the national security issue involved here, they chose to look away. This appears to be a classic example of greenwashing. 

10-It is with the knowledge of these matters that the leaders of the NC state legislature have formally appealed to the new Trump administration to intervene here to defend our military and to protect our national security. 
Congressman Walter Jones (co-chair of the House Armed Services Committee) wrote a good cover letter in support of the NC Legislators’ excellent correspondence. (We are hoping that our two senators will join in to present a united front.) Has there ever been an example where state legislative leaders have officially gone on record to ask the federal government to come in and shut down a wind project? No! Kudos to the NC state legislators for taking a principled stand on a VERY important matter. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Note From John Droz Jr:

This information is to the best of my knowledge. If any errors are found here, please send supporting documentation to the undersigned, and suitable corrections will be made in an update. 
john droz, jr “      aaprjohn (at) northnet (dot) org”           12/21/16 

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2

The following reblogged from

Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2

For Part Two

This paper is open for critical scientific and editorial review and comment. – Ed

by Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics
The genius of Al Gore
Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:
  1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
  2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.
What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.
Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of science deniers, some with PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.
The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.
Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.
Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.
Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong.

Monday, 19 December 2016

Zsa Zsa and Me. (Should be Zsa Zsa and I?)

I was slightly disturbed to learn that the once beautiful Zsa Zsa Gabor died just shy of her 100th birthday.

I bumped into her once in a Kings Cross hotel, the Sebel Townhouse.

I was carrying my musical instruments into the Townhouse to play music for the Launch of a book by the Reverend Ted Noffs and was walking around a pillar. She came around the other side of the same pillar, and we met, can I say, chest to chest?

What do you say when you meet a legend, chest to chest?




I said: "Nice to meet you."

What can I say?

She was gracious. Stepped aside because I was heavily laden.

VALE: Zsa Zsa Gabor

Saturday, 17 December 2016

Why Big Mining Loves Big Green

The Carbon Sense Newsletter, December 2016

The Labor/Green coalition in Australia has declared war on coal, oil and gas and industries that use them. So why is Big Mining not fighting back?

BHP Billiton is a big producer of coal, oil, gas, iron ore, copper, nickel and uranium. Rio Tinto is a big producer of uranium, coal, iron ore, copper and aluminium. Glencore is a big producer of coal, copper, zinc and nickel. And Shell is big in oil, gas and bitumen, manufactures biofuels, and generates peak power with natural gas.

These companies employ competent geologists, physicists and chemists who could tell them that CO2 is not a pollutant, that it is not the primary driver of climate and that climate has been changing since time began. They must know there is no scientific justification for the green war on hydro-carbon fuels - but none of these big miners speak out against this baseless war on their products. Some even waste shareholder funds producing glossy brochures promoting the green agenda – the BHP Billiton document “Climate Change: Portfolio Analysis” reads like it was produced by the Greens.

Big Mining is not that dumb. Their climate “concern” is more motivated by self-interest - they see long-term profits flowing from the silly green agenda. They are also political cowards wanting be loved by guilt-stricken billionaires, business haters from Hollywood and the green mob controlling the ABC/BBC.

Wind and solar power are indeed “free”, but to extract electricity from them is not free – it needs turbines and solar panels, generators and transformers, transmission towers and power lines - all of which boosts demand for metals like steel, copper, zinc, nickel and rare earths.

Moreover, wind and solar are very diffuse power sources and need large areas of land together with webs of access roads and power lines in order to collect significant power. The heavy machinery needed for construction, maintenance and replacements in these green power networks provide ongoing demands for petroleum and mining products. Before one watt of green electricity is generated for consumers, green power has boosted demand for most products of Big Mining.

To download a print-ready pdf of the whole article plus image click:

Permission to use the cartoon is granted providing the source is mentioned.
To download a tif file of the cartoon (2Mb) click:

Green power also needs back-up power ready to swing into action immediately the wind drops (or blows a gale) or clouds, fog, snow, rain, dust or night-time obscure the sun. This is great news for reliable energy suppliers capable of rapid backup, which usually means gas. So Big Gas loves Big Green - it is secretly delighted by the war on coal and the force-feeding of Green energy, as this will cause a boom in gas demand. Lead, nickel, cadmium and lithium miners are also delighted with the soaring demand for energy-storing batteries.

Intermittent energy producers like wind and solar also cause destructive fluctuations in electricity supply and prices – prices can fall to zero on a sunny, windy afternoon, but soar during still, sunless periods. Coal power stations cannot adjust quickly to this destructive variability in electricity demand and prices and will be sent broke, thus providing even more markets for gas.

Big Gas is thus delighted to secretly support the war on coal as it will do wonders for the demand for gas; but they fail to understand that once Greens have destroyed coal power, they will then turn their green guns onto gas.

Uranium producers love the greens. They know that if coal and gas are banned from power generation, and all hydro-power sites are “world-heritage protected”, all that is left to stabilise the electricity grids of modern society is nuclear power.

Even coal producers see short-term benefits in supporting inane green ideas like carbon capture and burial. This would greatly increase the amount of coal needed to generate the electricity consumed to collect, separate, compress, transport and bury exhaust gases as well as to refine and fabricate all the metals needed for gas collectors, compressors and pipelines. Even more silly is the academic dream to burn coal using oxygen, not air, for combustion to reduce the huge quantity of exhaust gases to be handled (mainly by removing nitrogen). This will consume even more energy and metals. Long term, the main beneficiaries of this industrial silliness will be nuclear power and uranium miners like Rio and BHP.

So Big Mining can extract benefits from green energy while earning political credits. And their PC executives can polish their green credentials in their posh suburban circles by supporting the silliness.

On the debit side are the usual victims - taxpayers and consumers of coal, oil, gas, electricity and metals; and employees and shareholders of industries being forced to close or emigrate because of expensive and unreliable electricity.

Viv Forbes

If you would like to comment on this article pls go to:

Further Reading:
Carbon Capture and Burial – a Stupid Answer to a Silly Question:

BHP’s green sympathies bite them back in South Australia, when their big Olympic Dam Mine was affected by blackouts:

Media Bias favours Wind Farms:

Clean Green Batteries?

Greens and technically challenged scribes apparently believe that battery-powered cars and planes are exciting new clean “zero-emissions” vehicles.

There is little new about batteries – battery powered cars were running on British roads over a century ago - they were pushed out of the market by petrol power.

Batteries just store energy made elsewhere and all have a finite life. Every battery needs primary energy and resources for production, recharging, replacing and recycling. Every step produces its own emissions.

Batteries require lots of expensive raw materials - lead, calcium, nickel, cadmium, lithium, hydrogen, plus ancillary copper, steel, zinc, aluminium and plastic. All need primary energy like coal or gas for mining, manufacture, construction, recharging and recycling plus coking coal for smelting metals.

Even wind and solar are not emissions-free once construction, maintenance, and life-cycle replacement are fully accounted for.

Greens think everything can be solved by “recycling”. But recycling batteries, like so many green dreams, may not save energy or emissions. There are real costs in collection, de-construction, separation and refining of the sometimes complex mess of metals and plastics in the hundreds of batteries we use. This recycling process may consume more energy than a well-organised mining/refining/fabrication operation using just one or two primary mineral deposits feeding an efficient battery factory.

Moreover, all cars, even battery-powered ones, need road maintenance using bitumen, concrete and diesel-powered machinery, all costing money and producing emissions. Green cars also need a whole new network of recharging stations, demanding even more metals.

Batteries have an important place in our lives. But they are not “emissions free”.

Viv Forbes

If you would like to comment on this article pls go to:

Further Reading:
Coal powered cars:

Nobody today is making a viable battery-powered vehicle:

Viv Forbes
December 2016
Rosevale   Qld Australia

Viv Forbes has Tertiary qualifications in geology, physics and chemistry and experience in coal, oil, gas, investment analysis and mineral economics. He holds shares in a small Australian coking coal exporter which will benefit if the war on carbon sends more Australian industries to Asia.

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, opposes the baseless war on carbon fuels and promotes the rational un-subsidised use of all energy resources including wind, solar, nuclear and 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.

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Past Potty Predictions that have Passed Away!

There are many failed Alarmist predictions. According to those fools, the planet should not exist.

May 11, 1982: Mostafa Tolba, executive Director of the UN Environment Program said the world governments must take action now or face disaster.  Lack of such action would bring
by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust. (Real Science)
Century has turned, planet survived 

Cartoons by Josh

Jan 19, 2009: Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen declared:
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. (link)
2013 arrived with the world still intact! 

I remember when estimating how much time was available to avert a global climate catastrophe was measured in decades. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.
Several Hours have gone by since 2009 - FAIL

July 9, 2009: The heir to the throne, [Prince Charles] told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. (Note that HE HAD CALCULATED)
Do you really believe the World will die Next July?

October 19, 2009: Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming.     (Link)                                

     19/12 plus 50 days - 8/12/09.   TIMES UP!!!
Cartoons by Josh
We cannot finish this post without ridiculing the 2007 Australian of the Year - Tim Flannery.
He won the Award on the back of his book: The Weathermakers. Flannery's book, in a counter volume by Dr Wes Allen,  was 
shown to contain

  • 23 misinterpretations, 
  • 28 contradictory statements, 
  • 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 
  • 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 
  • 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 
  • 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.

Tim Flim Flam also has some Potty Predictions from 
Australian Government wastes billions on Climate Change Hoax. 

Back then Flannery said  to play a thought game ten years on i.e. 2016:
  • We are coming to the peak of production of oil; and so inevitable fuel cutback which might help the fight against climate change;
  • Governments would be spending even more money defending their low-lying areas;
  • Oil prices 2 or 3 times what they were then;
  • increased problems of Hurricanes and Insurance losses;
  • problems of water unavailability - Warragamba Dam would never again be full;
  • sea levels to rise;
  • arctic ice to melt.
 Craig Kelly examines how reliable Flannery’s prediction are:
  • Oil then 62.80/barrel prediction (2 or 3 times) - 125.60 -184.40 but has halved (See which way will oil price go?)
  • Arctic see ice levels higher than what they’ve been at any time over the last decade (prediction period)
  • Warragamba Dam for two year 80% full and now lapping at the brims at 95%. Now NSW taxpayers are paying half a million dollars per day for a rusting unneeded desalination plant.

Craig says that, every time we have a difficult problem, we should put Flannery in a room and ask what his prediction is and then do the exact opposite.


H/t Climate Depot; Real Science; Ian Plimer's not for greens.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Energy & Environmental Newsletter - 12/12/16 (Peak Madness)

Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

Energy & Environmental
Newsletter - 12/12/16

AWED Friends:

The latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, is now available online. Since so 
much is happening, this issue is again coming out a week early — and will be the 
last one for the exciting year of 2016.

There continues to be a LOT of Trump related happenings, and many of the items on 
my 3 E’s Transition List look like they may come to pass! Again, it’ll be awhile before 
we can see how many of these recommendations are actually enacted, but based on the 
appointees so far, I’m now moderately optimistic.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Sunday, 11 December 2016


Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver interviews Lord Christopher Monckton who reveals a breaking discovery which may prove the entire 'climate change' scare is based on faulty mathematics. At the "Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie" conference in Phoenix, AZ Lord Monckton covers in depth the mathematical discovery his team has made and announces that these findings have been submitted

Saturday, 10 December 2016

Has the AGW hypothesis been falsified again?

The LHC - the biggest particle accelerator in the world.

Brian Cox, the celebrity scientist, describes himself as a particle physicist. Will he believe the particle physicists from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research who have cast doubt on the theory that man's fossil fuel use is driving disastrous global warming.

MANKIND'S burning of fossil fuels may not be the primary cause of global warming, according to the shock results of a new study by scientists behind the Large Hadron Collider (LCH). (JON AUSTIN - link)

Friday, 2 December 2016

Warming causes epic reef die-off: expert

Case Smit reply

 to the Sunshine Coast Daily that was published on 2 December – see below.

Image: Tourism Qld.
The burning of fossil fuels has caused the largest die-off of coral ever recorded on the Great Barrier Reef, Australian scientists say.

Two-thirds of all coral in the northern third of the reef is dead after a mass bleaching event earlier this year, new dive surveys show.

Leading reef expert Professor Terry Hughes says warmer waters caused by man-induced climate change have cooked corals in the north, which had been the most pristine part of the World Heritage-listed ecosystem.

The worst-hit stretch is from Port Douglas north, where 67 per cent of shallow-water corals have died in the past eight to nine months.

At Lizard Island, north of Cooktown, 100 per cent of corals are dead.

The central and southern stretches of the reef fared far better, because the water didn't get as hot

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

France to drop carbon tax plan

Source: GWPF
It appears to be all crumbling for the elites:
  • Brexit against their wishes;
  • The Paris agreement;
  • Trump wins popular vote in US;     and now
  • France to drop carbon tax plan.

The French government is set to drop plans to introduce a carbon tax, French financial daily Les Echos said on Thursday. 
The newspaper, quoting several sources, said the socialist government will not include the carbon tax in a draft 2016 budget update currently being discussed. 
Environment Minister Segolene Royal had said in May that France would unilaterally introduce a carbon price floor of about 30 euros ($33) a tonne with a view to kickstart broader European action to cut emissions and drive forward the December 2015 United Nations-led international climate accord.
Meanwhile, Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) has posted on his blog

I was recently discussing Lysenko with a friend (as you do), and naturally, we turned to Wikipedia to clarify a point.  And I came across a quote that hit me between the eyes (figuratively speaking);
“The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives”.
Dear Reader, you’re way ahead of me.  Yes, of course, I was struck immediately by the read-across to climate science.  The parallels are remarkable. (Read more)

Roger Helmer continued by comparing Lysenkoism to 
the parallels with climate theory:
Lysenkoism was restricted to the USSR.  And it was imposed by a totalitarian régime that could, and did, shoot dissenters.  Climate alarmism, on the other hand is broadly speaking global (even if some countries merely pay lip-service to the orthodoxy).  It is imposed not by a violent autocracy, but by an intolerant and often vindictive establishment – scientific, media and political.  It threatens not imprisonment and murder, but the destruction of careers.  Scientists who dare to challenge the prevailing view are denied tenure, and publication, and perhaps worst of all, grant funding.