Thursday, 26 May 2016

Turnbull's Tricky Treachery

Following on from our previous post: The Red Hunt Planned an October Carbon Tax

Malcolm Turnbull's agreement with the National's as reported by Simon Benson last September: (link)

Nationals leader Warren Truss, who was reported to be privately seething at the change of Liberal leadership, said his party would work with Mr Turnbull — but at a cost.
Critical to the Nationals’ endorsement of Mr Turnbull as PM was a pledge written into the agreement that he would not change existing policy on climate change or same-sex marriage.
In other words, it locked Mr Turnbull into a promise not to introduce an emissions trading scheme and to stick to the policy of a plebiscite on marriage equality. (bold added)

So much for MT's empty promise not to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

A few weeks after PM Turnbull made that promise,  Jo Nova warned of a forthcoming breach of

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

The Red Hunt planned an October Carbon Tax

The Hunt for Red October


The Red Hunt planned an October Carbon Tax

Greg Hunt has said that:
Bill Shorten has announced a massive new electricity tax – but he didn’t have the courage or the honesty to tell Australian families how much it will cost them.

Greg Hunt didn’t have the honesty to tell the Australian populace that he introduced a carbon tax scheme, very similar to the Rudd/GillardRudd government’s scheme into parliament last October…AND it has been approved by the parliament and the Senate. Greg Hunt's Sneaky Electricity Tax starts the day before the election.

LINK: Bill Shorten's Massive Electricity Tax

See also: Turnbull's Tricky Treachery

LINK: Hunt's Sneaky Carbon TAX Alan Kohler

Quietly, surprisingly, Australia’s climate change policy has become a bipartisan emissions trading scheme, or ETS … well, almost. The parties might try to

Monday, 23 May 2016

The Real Energy Deniers

By Viv Forbes

Geologist, grass farmer, mineral economist and founder of the Carbon Sense Coalition


Steve Hunter, Cartoonist
May 2016

To view this in your browser with all images:

When man first appeared on Earth he had no implements, no clothes, no farms and no mineral fuels – his only tools were his brains, hands and muscles.

Everything that enables mankind to live comfortably in a world where nature is indifferent to our survival has been discovered, invented, mined or created by our inventive ancestors over thousands of years.

The history of civilisation is essentially the story of man’s progressive access to more efficient, more

Sunday, 22 May 2016

Channeling Water is NOT Natural: Dr Jennifer Marohasy

For many years Dr Jennifer Marohasy has advocated the restoration of the Murray River’s estuary. Jennifer maintains The Myth and the Murray website

In this short video, Dr Marohasy makes the following points:
  • Water resource planning is brought about by BUYING back water from agriculture and channeling it down to the Murray's mouth (an unnatural diversion);
  • Peter Andrews: Before European Settlement, the rivers hardly ever made it to the sea;
  • Explorer Charles Sturt: Australian Rivers....before they reach the coasts....naturally exhaust themselves into marshes and lakes...
  • Jen Marohasy: The Murray's mouth could be scoured by the tides of the Southern Ocean if only sea water was allowed back into Lake Alexandrina

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Towards a Broader Perspective on Ocean Acidification Research

Ocean Acidification (OA) is a misnomer. Oceans are alkaline. The pH of the world’s oceans varies between 7.5 and 8.3 —  the acid zone starts below ‘neutral’ pH7. For an explanation of OA, see  Jo Nova: The Chemistry of pH and "acidification.

ICES Journal of Marine Science have issued an entire journal devoted to a review of all the papers published re Ocean Acidification: Volume 73 Number 3 February/March 2016

The review is conducted  by Editor Howard I. Browman - Institute of Marine Research, Marine Ecosystem Acoustics Disciplinary Group, Austevoll Research Station, 5392 Storebø, Norway. Howard Brownman has had 71 publications in peer review journals.

His introduction to the review in the Journal of Marine Science is titled:

Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research

Browman says that most of the OA "literature reports negative effects of CO2 on organisms and

Friday, 13 May 2016

Political Chaos in Australia

A letter sent to our political leaders by

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr. Judy Ryan is a retired scientist living in Canberra. Judy has been holding prominent alarmist academics accountable in the media. And holding ABC and others accountable. And doing so methodically and strongly yet respectfull

Dear Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt and Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, 

Respectfully, we raise the following issues for your consideration.

On September 7th, 2013 the Australian people voted in the Abbott Liberal Coalition government. 

As opposition leader, Tony Abbott promised to rid Australia of the "human caused global warming" aka "climate change" scam-based taxes. That was the major reason for his resounding victory.  He kept his promise and was a good, strong, ethical Prime Minister for the short time that we had him.

Under the Turnbull Government,  Australia's already fragile representative democracy has stepped

Monday, 9 May 2016

Malcolm Roberts and Pauline Hanson

by Anthony Cox

I attended a talk given by Malcolm Roberts on the 5th May 2016. Malcolm has been a real trouper in his quest to reveal the lies, manipulations and waste of man-made global warming (AGW). Using his impressive credentials and real world experience, Malcolm has distilled his research into a simple and devastating critique: AGW has no empirical evidence to support it. 

Science is based on empirical evidence. If there is no empirical evidence to support a science theory then it is not science. And this is the point about AGW: it is an ideological imposition on Western society and the world. As Malcolm noted the IPCC has openly declared that the purpose of AGW is to change the economicstructure of the Western world and to redistribute Western wealth.

Malcolm explained simply that human emissions of CO2 have no impact on overall concentrations of CO2, that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are almost entirely natural and that CO2 is dependent on temperature, not the other way around as claimed by AGW. In short AGW has no basis. This

Saturday, 7 May 2016

Tony Abbott for PM

Probably not the most accurate poll due to the bias of his readers.

A poll conducted by Zanetti shows that, of his readers, 90% want Tony Abbot to be Prime Minister.

Poor Malcolm gets only 1%; whilst the man who MT has been tricking, ScoMo is only rating slightly above Malcolm (actually double MT's rating) with 2%.

Interesting - the two candidates below Tony Abbot are the

The ALP's Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek's combined vote at 0% is one percent (1%) below Buffoon Clive Palmer. How can a buffoon out-rate Labor's leader and deputy leader.

To Misquote Clive ( and his take on the departure of Tony Abbott and Bronwyn Bishop)
Bye Bye, Clive. Clive Bye Bye. Clive Palmer Bye Bye. Bye Bye Clive. Clive Bye Bye.

The National Party Should Split with Turnbull's Left Leaning Liberals.

On Malcolm Turnbull's knife in the back coup, the Nationals negotiated a new Coalition agreement.

As recorded by the Weekly Times on September 15, 2015: (link)
THE Nationals have notched up some big wins in a new Coalition agreement negotiated after Malcolm Turnbull toppled Tony Abbott. 
For the first time, the agreement includes a side letter outlining policy directions for the future, in an apparent bid to protect the party’s platform from the more moderate Mr Turnbull. 
It includes assurances that there will be no change of policy on some of the most controversial issues of the day, including same-sex marriage and climate change, which is a move designed to appeal to the party’s traditionally conservative voter base.

As the Sydney Morning Herald reported: (link)
NSW Nationals Senator Williams told Fairfax Media: 
"In my opinion there are some things that are very important to the National Party, I envisage they will be discussed," he said, and cautioned Mr Turnbull not to take the party for granted.
"Surely Tony Abbott was more to the right than Malcolm Turnbull so for balance I think there is a very important role for the Nationals to play in the future."
It did not take Malcolm Turnbull long, despite Senator William's warning not to take the Nats for granted, to turn his back on the Abbott government's policies. Particularly on "Climate Change" policies. 

Initially in smaller items but then in one whopping One Billion swoop.
Malcolm Turnbull will set up a $1 billion fund to spur investment in renewable energy in a move that offers his first major policy on climate change since becoming Prime Minister, answering Labor taunts about his personal conviction on global warming. 
The funding will be spread over a decade and will draw on part of the borrowings meant to support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a $10bn scheme that Tony Abbott vowed to scrap but which will be retained. 
The new statement will make it clear that an Abbott Government bill to dismantle the CEFC, which has been rejected twice and is a trigger for a double-dissolution election, will be abandoned so that the finance corporation will remain.
The Delcons could be a big factor in the forthcoming Federal Election.

Who are DelCons? 

Joanne Nova explains DelCons and also DefCons:
The elephant in 2016 is the ferocious boiling anger among betrayed conservatives and small government libertarians, divided over whether they can bear to vote for Turnbull (a Liberal*) who has been called the best leader the Labor Party never had. Delcons was tossed at the so-called “Delusional” Conservatives. But they took up the badge. Defcons means the Defiant ones.
Joanne later tried to assess the number of the voters who are disaffected by Turnbull's swerving to the left:
There are 15 million voters enrolled in Australia. If  4% of Liberal-Nat voters are Delcons, that’s about 2% of the total voter pool or 300,000 people who don’t matter. And that’s a conservative, pardon the pun, estimate. Another 10% of Liberal voters said they are “a little less likely” to  vote for the Liberal Party at the next election. These voters are not lost from the leftie end of the Liberal Party fan club. Potentially there are another 750,000 who could be convinced to instead vote National, ALA, Lib Dem, Family First or some other option should it appear. 

 750,000 who could be convinced to instead vote National....

While the 
new Coalition agreement remains in place, the DelCons (and the DefCons) cannot vote National in seats where the Liberal Party is fielding candidates. If the Nationals declare that the Coalition agreement has been broken by the Turnbull government's actions, they then could campaign in many more seats. That would give many of the DelCons a large established party to vote for.

Because of the distrust of Malcolm Turnbull by these voters, the Nats could possibly become a party with more seats than Turnbull's Liberal Party.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Liberals, tugging their forelocks, came cap in hand to the Nationals, wanting to become the junior partner in a newly formed Coalition?

Over to you, Barnaby.

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

The Science isn't settled!

Note the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2
In the face of a monolithically climate alarmist academia, media and government, several courageous individuals are working to unsettle the purportedly “settled science” of climate change, arguing that carbon dioxide atmospheric enrichment provides manifold benefits for mankind, that flawed economic models are being used to justify anti-capitalist and destructive public policies, that mild warming of the planet ought to be celebrated and fighting back courageously against those who wish to chill free speech by using the law to litigate science. 

This is their story. 

Featured speakers include Mark Steyn, international bestselling author and commentator, Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton, Dr. Craig Idso, Founder Former President and Current Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace and author of “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout—The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” Dr. Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and Research Chair in Energy, Ecology and Prosperity at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, Bruce Everett, a Specialist on Global Energy and Petroleum Issues and Adjunct Associate Professor of International Business, Fletcher School at Tufts University and Roger Kimball, Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion. 

For more from The New Criterion and CO2 Coalition’s March 2016 ‘The Climate Surprise’ conference, check out The New Criterion’s YouTube channel at     (Published on Apr 25, 2016)

Sunday, 1 May 2016

More CO2 still greening the Earth

The shrill keep speaking of carbon pollution. This is a double lie.

The late Bob Carter wrote in his book; "Taxing Air:"

Why all this talk about carbon instead of carbon dioxide? 
Because it evokes the image of dirty smokestacks, long a thing of the past in Australia.
Since the 1970s, green lobby groups have come to realise the power that resides in defining the language used in environmental debates — generally by substituting deliberately emotionally-charged words for factually accurate ones. 
To further compound the lie, the shrill tack "pollution" onto carbon. Again from "Taxing Air:"
Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Moreover, it is vital for life on Earth. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is taken up and incorporated into vegetation during growth through the process of photosynthesis; carbon dioxide is returned to the at- mosphere during respiration and decay of dead biomass. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial to plant growth. 
This blog has repeatedly published studies that show how CO2, rather than being a pollutant,  is increasing the biomass; eg here, here, here and here

The Australian has a piece by John Ross headed:

Forests suck more CO2 during drought

Climate models have been turned upside down by a research finding that US forests sucked CO2 from the atmosphere ­despite being in the grip of one of the nation’s worst droughts. 
New modelling of carbon take-up during 2012 has con­cluded that the country’s flora absorbed more carbon than it emitted, at a time when the most severe drought since the 1930s, a notorious dry spell known as the Dust Bowl period, was enveloping most of the US mainland. 
The finding questions conventional wisdom that drought turns terrestrial flora from a sink into a carbon source, as expiring plants release trapped CO2 into the atmosphere.
The Paper:

Warm spring reduced carbon cycle impact of the 2012 US summer drought   Wolf et al
Carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems mitigates the impact of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but the strength of this carbon sink is highly sensitive to large-scale extreme climate events. In 2012, the United States experienced the most severe drought since the Dust Bowl period, along with the warmest spring on record. Here, we quantify the impact of this climate anomaly on the carbon cycle.
Another paper released this week also confirms CO2 greening the environment.

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Nature Climate Change
Published online

If all the extra leaves growing because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere were laid end to end, it would cover a space twice the size of the continental U.S. That's the conclusion of a new study conducted by 32 scientists and 24 institutions.
About 85% of Earth's ice-free land is covered by plants, and each year photosynthesis soaks up about one quarter of the nearly 10 billion tonnes of carbon emitted by humans.
Dr Canadell said the greening has surprised scientists who expected to see more browning, given the increase in droughts associated with global warming.
While the researchers found between 25 to 50 per cent of all vegetated areas of the land have become greener, only 4 per cent have become browner. (link)
Another  of the 32 scientists commented:
“We were able to tie the greening largely to the fertilizing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration by tasking several computer models to mimic plant growth observed in the satellite data,” says co-author Prof. Ranga Myneni of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, USA.
AND still the shrill, without a single peer-reviewed paper to prop up their crumbling hypothesis, still refer to invisible, vital-to-life carbon dioxide as carbon pollution.

Reality comes to starry-eyed Greenie

The following is an extract from a post on HuffPost Green by Amy Porterfield Levy:

A confession

I cringe at how naïve I was when I first got into this, all wide-eyed and excited to save the planet (I cringe at that phrase now too.) Then, I got called a climate change denier because I suggested nuclear power should be in the clean energy mix since it’s, you know, CLEAN ENERGY. I felt like a big dumbass, holding out my hand with all the nice little stats about nuclear safety and radiation and my hooray-for-baseload-power excitement. I thought, “Oh, if people weren’t so scared of nuclear power, then we could stop burning coal and everyone could have air-conditioning as good as mine and not die from spoiled food. This is awesome!” Not so fast. Not only was I a denier but I was a… right-winger?
So, I cried and cried and couldn’t figure it out. At first, I thought people assumed I was a shill for the big, powerful Nuclear Industry Lobby until I realized that the nuclear industry is a sad, fat dinosaur with one leg dragging behind it, crying for everyone to wait up. (I think their lobby is just a few old guys in golf sweaters, handing out pamphlets.) It started to make sense though when I saw an interview with an activist I really like and admire, Naomi Klein. When asked about nuclear power, she rejects it and says:
“I understand why people looking at the current power configurations as they are, believe that we need these centralized solutions that are less threatening to our elites.”
Part of an article on Huff Post Green by Amy Porterfield Levy.

Amy says that anyone who diverges from the Green orthodoxy is sc reamed down with the "denier" tag. On Naomi Klein, Amy writes: sounds like her social movement is more important to her than not burning fossil fuels. That’s when a dim bulb went off over my head: Maybe the social movement is more important to a lot of these people than the HOT CLIMATE part.

- See more at:

H/t Andrew