मोरे होत एयर फ्रॉम मत्रियन Wilkinson

Marian Wilkinson has breathed out more hot air. Her article says:
The Peanut Company of Australia is buying new farm properties in the Northern Territory to hedge against south-east Queensland's falling rainfall.

I suppose she meant the SE Queensland had so much rain falling it caused major flooding.

Condemnation over lack of Balance re Climate Change Sceptics

The Belfast Today Newsletter (dated 25/3/09) contains a report entitled Condemnation over Climate change "doubt." The author of the article didn't have the bottle to add his/her name to the article. Such Bravery!

"So what does Ms Armstrong think of Northern Ireland's controversial Environment Minister, who believes that changes in the Earth's climate are primarily natural cycles?
"With any scientific debate there will be differences in opinion," says Ms Armstrong. But are "all" the world's scientists convinced that man is the primary driver behind climate change? Ms Armstrong says she has read recently published-research which showed that of the 77 scientists featured, 75 believe man is the primary cause of climate change."

Hey, Ms Armstrong, do you believe that science is a popularity poll? Any time science comes up with a theory, it is pulled every which way by other scientists to test its scientistic veracity. So, really, it is not a popularity poll.

Fanny (with an 'R') then says that she first heard about man-made global warming (AGW) when she was in school in the 1980's. She now believes there has been enough debate. Great, Fanny (with an 'R"), but have you looked at the science since you were at school in the 80's or did your brain stop thinking then?

The article goes on: "Sceptics argue that of 2,500 scientists who contributed to a landmark UN IPCC report on climate change, the vast majority merely contributed data and only a tiny minority drew the conclusions that man is wrecking the world's climate." In fact, John McLean's very well researched paper says actually the tiny minority is 63!

Ms Armstrong's response?

"I'm not sure," she said. "But I am not interested in debate.
And what of the fact that long before industrialisation, the arctic ice cap was regularly free of ice, long before man was churning out greenhouse gases?

"The debate is over," she replies. "Lets not you and I debate this – we are not scientists. Let us report the facts from scientists – we will just confuse people if we discuss it."

OK Ms Armstrong, Let's not debate this. Let us report the facts from scientists.
Let's report the fact that CO2 is not to blame.
Let's report the fact that 650,000 years of Vostok Ice Core samples show that temperature rise precedes rise in Co2.
Let's report that a recent paper ‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119 shows that Co2 is not too blame.

What an horrendous little creature you are, Ms Armstrong. "Let's not debate this."
Sure, when all the science is against you, it would not be wise.
"Let's report the facts from scientists." Well, I have and they blow you away. Will you now apologise?
"We will just confuse people if we discuss it."
Sure, the facts kill any argument you have, so I can understand why you don't want to discuss the scientistic truth. You are a disgrace!

Ad Hominen attacks and one back at them

From the UK Independant dated 22 March 09. Various UK politicians calling Climate Change Sceptics as "Taliban"
Could there be a worse ad hominen attack? The despicable Taliban.

"David Cameron yesterday slapped down a senior Tory who compared climate change activists to the Taliban, as he continued his attempt to green his party, despite the recession and opposition from sceptics."

"Ironically, "the Taliban" is also the epithet privately used by green Tories for the party's climate change sceptics."

The article goes on to say: "Next week he is to have a special meeting with Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who – as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – is leading scientific calls for tough action."

The head of the IPCC is calling for tough action? He should be calling for "his" scientists to establish the fact that man-made CO2 causes Global warming. After twenty years and trillions of dollars of research dollars, no such link has been made.

However, the Vostok Ice core samples show 650,000 years of proof that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS warming.

It's not hard, Dr Pauchauri, all you have to do is look at the scientistic evidence rather than the political guff put out in the IPCC press packs. You can find plenty more science at http://www.climatesceptics.com.au

Earwax eating PM gives bird to opposition

I thought Australian Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd fell to an all time low when he was caught out in Parliament using his finger to mine his own earwax and then put the fingerfull in his mouth. Chomp, Chomp, mmmm...tasty.

Yesterday, however, he found a new use for his finger. Shown on the 6pm channel 7 Sydney news broadcast, he made a rude gesture to the opposition. This rude person sunk to a new all time low.

And to think his ambition is to become the Head of the United Nations. Fat chance, Kevie!

"Co2 is Innocent!" Investors' Business Daily

In hot pursuit of Co2 - Investors Business Daily 12/3/09.

Some common sense (which is not all that common) in a crazed MSM world, IBD said:

Carol Browner, head of the EPA under the Clinton administration and climate czar for the current White House, is certain that the EPA will make the "endangerment finding" that will help move the process along. The way she talks about it, it sounds like it is now a mere formality the EPA will declare CO2 to be a pollutant.
That's no surprise. The political left for years has been chasing down CO2, which isn't a pollutant even if the Supreme Court says it can be regulated as such under the Clean Air Act. It's a naturally occurring gas that's necessary for life to continue. And it makes up less than four hundred parts per million (0.038%) by volume of our atmosphere.
And humankind's contribution to that small portion is just over 3%, meaning that whatever we do, our impact on greenhouse gas concentrations is virtually negligible. By extension, our impact on global warming is just as negligible.

Carol Browner (shouldn't that be Greener?) should also note that Australia's equivalent to her is our Ms Penny Wong. Although Penny Wong has introduced the Carbon (CO2) Pollution Reduction Scheme, her own office lists the six air pollutants in ambient air as:- carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particles and sulfur dioxide. Note that there is no mention of carbon dioxide.

The Warming Alarmist and the Flasher

I'm ashamed to admit this, however, my uncle is a flasher. He's getting on and, as all us enlightened people know Winters are getting colder. He said to me: "You know, Taluka, it's getting harder (no pun intended) as the cold gets stronger."
I replied: "Why don't you give it away?" Uncle said: "I'll stick it out for another year."

I was wondering about the Global Warming Alarmists. As the Globe cools they can only say it is "noise" for so long. The world is making it harder for them. How long will they stick it out?

When the truth comes out, scientists reputations will be down the bottom with Politicians and Used Car salesmen.

'Act on climate or kill future chances to defraud

From SMH, 17/3/09 in an article without a byline - what no-one would claim credit for this tosh?

"One of the country's top scientists has told politicians to act quickly on climate change or devastate the lives of unborn generations. Penny Sackett, the Government's Chief Scientist, delivered her blunt message to politicians at a dinner at Parliament House on Tuesday night."

So Prof Penny, what was your message?

"Professor Sackett warned the actions of this generation "may deny the next generation the prosperity that we have enjoyed and endanger the lives of millions".

I'm confused. Was it you, Penny, that warned the actions of this generation? Or was it sloppy journalism and it should have read...
Professor Sackett warned this generation that their actions....

"She said slashing carbon emissions now was "the only real future that a baby born today has".

So, how does a baby slash carbon emissions?
What effect will slashing emissions ( presumably you mean Co2 emissions?) have?
Do you, our chief scientist understand that CO2 has been found innocent?
Vostok Ice Core samples have proven that CO2 does not cause globalwarming.

I notice that the report says: "The politicians left midway through Professor Sackett's speech.."

Climate may heat Christians, too, military analysts say!?

The Christian Science Monitor/ March 17, 2009.
Article by Kelly Hearn.
"Top US defense officials are envisioning ways that American military personnel, equipment, and installations might be affected by extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses projected to accompany global climate change – stresses that may exacerbate existing security threats and breed new ones. Experts disagree on the scale and timing of threats."

Hey, Experts disagree on the fact that extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses will accompany global climate change.

"The US intelligence community, for example, recently wrote a National Intelligence Assessment on the national security impacts of global climate change through 2030."

The US intelligence community! That would be Military Intelligence,wouldn't it? That's an oxymoron!

"Another presidential report prepared by the US intelligence community, Global Trends 2025, has climate change as a top talking point."

"US intelligence community! Again the oxymoron. Climate change is the top talking point? OK! CO2 is not guilty! CO2 is not pollution! Vostok ice core samples show that temperature rise precedes rises in atmospheric CO2. Anyone still believing in Co2 causing Global Warming should make sure their membership to the flat earth society is still current because they are that far behind the science.

Christian Science - either get up to date with the latest science or rejoin the flat earthers!

Climate Sceptics get political; Taxpayers $$$s down the tube.

Fairfax press' slightly tongue-in-cheek journal titled The Independant Weekly dated 17 March 2009
reports on the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party (TCS).

Interesting to note that they report the budget for the Department of Environment and Climate Change to be $50 Billion.
Page four of the budget's portfolio overview for DCC shows administered appropriations as $32 billion and departmental appropriations as $56.5 billion giving a total $88.5 billion. That's a lot of taxpayers dollars

Geo-Engineering Dreams in "The Australian"

In an almost surreal article in the Australian by Jonathan Leake and Richard Woods dated March 16, 2009 some weird statements were made:

1. "....:unless emissions of greenhouse gases fall within five years"

After 20 years of research, the IPCC have not shown that greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) cause any rise in temperature.


2 Chairman of the working group John Shepherd said: "Our study aims to separate the science from the science fiction and offer recommendations on which options deserve serious consideration."

Welll, Mr Shepherd, you could start with the ice core samples from world scientists which show that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature. You could also check the fact from the samples that a concentration of 288ppmvCo2 at various times in history accompanied both rising and falling temperatures

3 Professor Launder thinks extracting carbon from the atmosphere would be too slow to prevent significant warming. In his view "the only rational scheme is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth and to reflect back more of it".

So, it's the sun that causes warming and not CO2. Actually we have been without sunspot activity for a while now and have had almost 11 years of global cooling. Is Professor Launder laundering the CO2 theory?

EPA Miracle Workers

New York Times - in a story entitled: "Leaked EPA document shows greenhouse gas endangerment finding on fast track."

EPA has been working feverishly since January to complete a scientific review of whether greenhouse gas emissions are influencing everything from crop failures to more intense heat waves and more severe coastal storms.

These must be amazing people, the IPCC has been trying to do the same thing for 20 years....20 years and have not succeeded and the EPA think that they can prove it in a few months.

I don't thnk so!

Sell your seaside Australian Property Now!

At Port Arthur, this published paper - below - estimates an ocean rise of 1mm per year.
Well, I'm not much with figures, but I think that means 100mm in a century.(4 inches)
At WA's Fremantle - 1.6mm pa or 160 mm in a century. (6 inches)
Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour) 1.2 mm per year or 120mm per century. (under 5 inches)

For Australians and other metric countrymen, who are not sure on the imperial measurements, 6 inches is half a foot. Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ says sea levels could rise up to 20 feet. Is this true? Forty times greater than the above!

Myth Busted!


From GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 7, 1401, doi:10.1029/2002GL016813, 2003 (courtesy Craig Idso's www.co2science.org/)

When combined
with the estimates of land uplift given above, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise at this location due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year. This is at the lower end of the range of global average sea level rise for the 20th century (1–2 mm/year) given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Church et al., 2001]. If it is assumed that most of this sea level rise occurred since about 1890 (the indication from long tidal records from elsewhere; Woodworth, 1999), then the corresponding estimates of rise (1890 to the present) relative to the land, and due to an increase in the volume of the oceans, become 1.2 ± 0.2 mm/year and 1.4 ± 0.3 mm/ year, respectively.
9. Discussion
[13] The above estimates of sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans may be compared with recent estimates for the two longest (continuous) Australian records. Fremantle (32
30 S, 115
440 E; 91 years to 1996) and Fort Denison (33
510 S, 151
140 E; 82 years to 1997) showed rates of rise of 1.6 and 1.2 mm/year, respectively, after adjustment for GIA [Lambeck, 2002].

Al Gore is headed for a crash!

In the Denver Examiner, a report headed: Al Gore: This roller coaster is headed for a crash, he was he was confronted about his unwillingness to debate the issue. It appears he dodged that question.

Mr. Gore pointed to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that produced the four reports calling manmade climate change “unequivocal.” To underscore the importance of the IPCC reports he claimed that the U.N. selected the “3,000 best scientists from the relevant fields” and that they had produced, “four unanimous assessments.”

Two inconvenient untruths there, Big Al. If you go beyond the summary for policymakers, you will find there is nothing "unequivocal."
You will find weasel words like may, perhaps, tend to, could etc etc. There was nothing like 3,000 preparing the Summaries for PolicyMakers.
From http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it seems
that they were not all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim,
although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and
reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as
a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers.

Coke to turn off electro kinetic sculpture” during Earth Hour.

In an item on National Post by Peter Foster(one of the good guys):

"Times Square also last year witnessed the success of those who wish to dim the lights on such despised materialism. Coca Cola agreed to flip the switch on its thirty-ton “electro kinetic sculpture” during Earth Hour, that exercise in social and corporate pressure, organized by the World Wildlife Fund, during which people wander around in the dark for the sake of the planet."

I hope they realise that when Mr Obama declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant, they will have to take the fizzzz out of coke!


"The Heartland Institute stresses that “No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.” That proviso is necessary to forestall braying NGOs and members of the policy establishment who claim that skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal."

Who's Dumb? Dykstra is dumber

On the strangely labelled Mother Nature Network, Peter Dykstra shows his dumbness with a post titled:Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza. Some quotes:

"Yeah, folks, there's a chance climate change isn't for real. There's always a chance. "

Well, that's your first mistake, Peter. Climate does change, climate has been changing all through the course of history.


"There's always a chance that the mounting evidence, the computer models and long-term forecasts are wrong."

That's right, Peter. The computer models are wrong. In fact, if they start at a previous date in time, they can't even predict the present.

"In America, climate change science and climate change politics are two different things. Two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data hasn’t changed that."

Right, the IPCC is the reigning king of Climate science politics that has issued two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data.

Now here's a thought, Peter. Why don't you get along to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York and reduce your ignorance?

Climate Change Denial - claim Idiots on FaceBook!

From: Spiked-online dated Wednesday 4 March 2009 by Brendan O’Neill

The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics.

Insults from a group of people who unfortunatley haven't followed the latest science!

This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’

Get real!

Andes Glaciers Advancing; Global Warming is over

On the American Daily web site, an opinion piece by Gregory J Romano who has an MS in Chemistry. Some extracts:

"So when I arrived a day later in the city of Huaraz in the Callejon de Huaylas, I was curious to see if in fact the glaciers had retreated and if the snow cover was reduced from prior years. What I learned was in fact, just the opposite—from my own photographs and from the testimonies of the people with whom I spoke over the next two weeks.

Despite the ‘consensus’ of scientists that we are told agree that global warming is a fact, I observed more snow on the mountains, the glaciers had seemingly grown in size, and the climate had become noticeably cooler. The locals—virtually all of them farmers—confirmed this."


"Murdock quotes from a letter written to British members of Parliament last October from Imperial College of London astrophysicist and long range forecaster Piers Corbyn: “Global Warming is over, and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change…According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly.”

He adds, “That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called ‘global warming,’ October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.”

Gore is wrong - Speaker says

Thomas Friedman, a New York Times journalist and three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize spoke Wednesday at Ball State University.

Two years ago, when Friedman met Al Gore, he told the former vice president he should write a newspaper column with the following lead: "I'm sorry. I apologize. "

This is the only thing Mr. Friedman got right. He also said:


Mother Nature is a lot like us. If your temperature rises just a few degrees, you get sick. If it rises a few more degrees, you go to the hospital.

That may be so, Tommy, but historical records show that during the Medieval Warm period when the world was warmer than today there was a period of great wealth. So, although you say: If your temperature rises just a few degrees, you get sick, if the world's temperature rises just a few degrees, the world gets better!

NZ Prime Minister awake to Climate Change Hoax?

On the Scoop NZ Web site, NZ Prime Minister John Key is quoted as saying to Investigate Magazine that he wanted..

"to have flexibility so that if the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right we have an ability to alter the impact on our economy".

Well, Mr Key, it's too late. The science has deteriorated and the climate change sceptics are right.

“As a result of learning of the Prime Minister’s comments, Greenpeace, one of the worlds leading NGOs in the climate change area, advised that it would not be participating further in the ETS Review Select Committee."

What a bonus. Not having to deal with the radical, human-hating Greens!

Hey, Mr Key, Looks like you are moving in the right direction! How about jumping ship and forming a NZ chapter of the (Australian) Climate Sceptics party. They can offer you (and any other person from outside Australia) an Associate Membership.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

AGW - The semantics of denial

On George Monbiot's blog on the UK Guardian Web site:

They claim they're sceptics – but when any explanation will do as long as it backs their theories, 'climate change deniers' is the only term good enough......I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.

Well, George, you are wrong, sorry but you are.

The deniers are the promoters of AGW. Science has moved on. They have had twenty years and spent trillions trying to show that CO2 causes global warming and have not yet done so. (Because they cannot!)

They have denied the fact that ice core studies show that a rise in global temperature CAUSES a rises in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around. They say that warming will cause all kinds of gloom and doom; denying the historic proof that warming during the MWP was beneficial to mankind; great wealth in Europe; farming in Greenland where the now is permafrost etc etc..

So, George, you see, we are not the deniers, they are! THEY will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.