Labor Lurches and Lies

Lies, Damn lies and Lurches

2010-10-13T12:36:00.004+11:00

My name is Taluka Byvalnian and I have run this blog for several years. It has been called TALBYV from the first three letters of my names and also as an anagram for
Think
A
Lot
Before
You
Vote.

I believe that Mr Rudd lied his way into government by pretending that he was John Howard Lite. He said that he was
• an economic rationalist - wrong;
• he said that he would control petrol prices - wrong;
• he said that he would control grocery prices - wrong;
• he said that he would turn back the boats - wrong

During his shortened term as PM, he told many porkies:
• he lied about a special deal for the Tamils on the Ocean Viking;
• he lied about being or not being a socliaist;
• he lied about his father's death;
• he lied about his family being immediately thrown off the share-cropping farm;
• he lied about the Brian Burke meeting in Perth
• he lied about renting a house owned by his wife;
• he lied about his drunken escapade at Scores Strip club;
• he lied about the fake ANZAC day dawn service;

Well, for the time being, Mr Rudd has left the leadership but has not ruled out a challenge. Now Ms Gillard and her deputy Wayne Swann are lurching from lie to disaster to lie to under-the-carpet sweeping manoevers.

Surprisingly, for all her lies and lurches, the two party preferred is still 50/50.
(Labor is on 35, the Coalition 42 and Greens on 14) Obviously, some are not concentrating!

It's the Sun, Stupid

2010-09-25T17:28:00.006+10:00

Anthony Watts in a posts titled: Climate science solar shock and aweinforms us of a story in New Scientist headed: The Sun joins the Climate Club.

Where has New Scientist been hiding?

A week before, Science Now published an article entitled SAY GOODBYE TO SUNSPOTS reporting on a paper -Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields Authors: Matthew Penn, William Livingston submitted 3 September, 2010 to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium.

Astronomers have been observing and counting sunspots since Galileo began the practice in the early 17th century. From those studies, scientists have long known that the sun goes through an 11-year cycle, in which the number of sunspots spikes during a period called the solar maximum and drops—sometimes to zero—during a time of inactivity called the solar minimum.

The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century.

Are Monbiot and the Guardian Deniers?

2010-09-25T10:44:00.005+10:00

What The Guardian first printed and then deleted. I saw this comment just after mine. Now it isn't there. THE CENSORSHIP by the Guardian really makes them deniers, doesn't it?

In his usual abusive and ad hominem style, Georgie Moonbat has an article in the Guardian under the heading: "Are the climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?". Piers Corbyn put up a reply in their comments section which the paper deleted. The comment is below:

George, YOUR "poser" must be applied to yourself!
You ask: "Are people who entertain a range of strong beliefs for which there is no evidence naturally gullible?".

Well you are a person with a strong belief in man-made(CO2) Global Warming / Climate Change, and there is no evidence for it. So are you naturally gullible?

If you have observational data evidence for the theory - using available data for the last hundreds, thousands and millions of years - let's have it. We don't want your usual opinion-polls, bluster, innuendo and opinion of peoples' attitudes, vibes and mental states we want EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE.

There are three key points which must be be understood:

1. The theory of Man-made Global Warming & Climate Change is failed science based on fraudulent data. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP!

All the dire predictions of the UN (IPCC) since 2000 have failed. CO2 does not cause extreme weather. The world is cooling not warming. There is no evidence in 600, 600,000 or 600million years of data that changes in CO2 levels in the real atmosphere drive world temperatures or change climate; indeed it is temperatures which generally drive CO2 levels. - See http://bit.ly/9UKlBD . Extra CO2 has ZERO effect, and any concession to the notion there is somehow some 'weak' effect waiting to happen falls into the trap the Climate hype industry machine has set for the ill-informed and the usual Appeasement brigades who surface in all political conflicts.

2. The driver of all important weather extremes is solar activity.

In the end it is extreme weather that matters rather than averages and this is controlled by Jet stream shifts and extra activity of weather fronts, and These are driven by changes in solar activity and largely predictable – See ongoing discussion in Comments as link above, http://bit.ly/bpZDlp - espec comment Aug 8th concerning predicted changes in the jet stream + records of the solar activity that caused them.

3. MORE CO2 is GOOD not bad.

CO2 is plant food and more CO2 increases the productivity of agriculture. Carbon fixing policies are madness which if carried out in the name of ‘Clean coal’
[NB Smoke from coal is easily removed and should be, but that is another issue]
would double the cost of electricity and double the amount of coal used to produce power because carbon fixing (‘sequestration’) is very energy intensive.

Monbiot plants foot in mouth

2010-09-22T09:34:00.007+10:00

Boy! Does the Moonbat know how to put his foot in it? You bet he does.

On his blog - link in title - he does it continually!

He starts:

Are the climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible?

Point one: "Climate Change Sceptics". Who are the Climate Change Sceptics? I know most people I associate with are greatly sceptical of the "Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but are very aware that climate changes, that climate has changed since the beginning of time.

We know that there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. We know that there have been Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials. We know that in the current interglacial that there has been warmer periods than the late twentieth century. The Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming.

Even CRU's Phil Jones admitted that there was nothing unusual about the late twentieth century warming. Therefore no Climate Sceptic who I know could be called a Climate Change Sceptic.

On the other hand, the Alarmists wanted to erase the medieval warm period to show that the late twentieth century warming was unusual (Overpeck to Deeming) and so the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph was created. M & M showed that putting phone numbers from the Canadian phone book into the Hockey Stick code still produced - quel surpris! - a hockey stick. AND why the hockey stick? To show there is unusual warming in the late twentieth century. Denying the fact that climate changes!

The Alarmist, therefore, are the true Climate Change Deniers!

So, back to Monbiot's Heading - Are climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible? OR
Are the Alarmists, the true climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?

Point Two. No evidence?

Let's ask the Alarmists where is the evidence that AGW is caused by Carbon Dioxide. I have been asking this question for a decade. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing AGW.There is however evidence from the Vostok Ice Core sample to show that warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 by 800 +/-200 years.

So, I suppose we can ask: Are the Alarmists with no evidence just plainly gullible.

Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods

2010-08-25T20:19:00.003+10:00

WALTER CUNNINGHAM in the HOUSTON CHRONICLE on Aug. 14, 2010 wrote:(link in title)

The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.

It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.

Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.

It is the job of science to develop the theories that explain our natural world. Scientific theories, even those that evolved over centuries, are subject to challenge and change — when supported by the appropriate scientific data. This enables new hypotheses to modify, or even replace, currently accepted theories.

It is interesting that Walter and his correspondents seem to know more about climate science than most of the MSM.

Some comments on the Chronicle site:

Regarding "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), Robert Curl is making two invalid assumptions. First, he assumes the administrators of the National Academy of Sciences represent the opinions of their 2,480 members. In fact, there is no document that any representative number of these 2,480 members have signed expressing their opinion that the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is valid.

Second, he assumes there is some "best science" out there that prevails over the body of opinion represented by Walter Cunningham ("Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods," Page B10, Aug. 15). In fact, neither Curl nor any of the proponents of human-caused climate change can demonstrate a valid hypothesis to support their opinions.

If a hypothesis makes any incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is wrong. It does not matter if you have a Nobel Prize. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. An overwhelming body of science has proven the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is wrong.

— EDWIN BERRY,
Bigfork, Mont.
Wrong logic

In regard to "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), climate change is happening and global warming is happening — but it ain't being caused by us pesky humans. Robert Curl's verbiage points a crooked finger directly at me and you, and it shouldn't. Award-winning scientists such as Professor Curl are prime suspects for marching with a flute in their hands, leading an innocent group of followers down a path of believable logic (albeit wrong). If humans cause global warming how do you explain the constant, steady pattern of ice age-then-warming, ice age-then-warming, that is documented over the past 500,000 years? The problem with those who believe in human-caused global warming: They only cite references that support their theories. No one looks up anything, and Curl gets another award and probably a pay raise from Rice University.

— DAVID WALTON,
Houston

Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators

2010-08-14T14:46:00.003+10:00

Press Release

Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators

Aug 13th

On Monday Aug 16th at 10 am The Climate Sceptics will announce their Northern Australia Water diversion vision at Berri next to the River Murray.
Several Irrigator groups have been invited to attend the announcement and discuss the idea which Barker Candidate Steve Davies and Senate candidate Leon Ashby will explain.

Leon Ashby says "Australia has one of the world flattest inland landscapes that would lend itself to having the most efficient water diversion scheme in the world - if anti progress Green ideology was overcome."
The environment award winner says: "I lived in North Central Qld for a decade and saw the massive amounts of water that northern rivers have at times. I was runner up for a Qld Landcare research award which moved water gravitationally over a 10,000 acres rather than let it flow down several creeks) It was a mini version of what can be done across Australia."
The Senate candidate says "There are 4 areas in Australia where water diversions should be properly investigated (provided most of the water was used for irrigation and city purposes) which then pays for the scheme.

1) The Clarence River in Northern NSW north of Coffs Harbour (which has flooded 3 times in the last 18 months);

2) The Johnson, Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers dammed up at Hells Gate and then run through a tunnel to the western side of the great dividing range. (The cost of the dam was $750 million last time it was researched);

3) A diversion from the Flinders, Normanton and Gilbert Rivers down the west side of the Great dividing range; and

4) A pipeline from Lake Argyle in the Northern Territory across to Qld.

Mr Ashby adds: "In 1980s the Bjelke-Petersen government commissioned its own study. Bringing together four of Australia’s best-known hydraulic engineering firms - Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey; Monro & Johnson; McIntyre & Associates and Cameron McNamara - the State government formed the Bradfield (Northern Rivers) Study consortium in 1984.

This report was never released!"

Mr Ashby pledged that if elected to the SA Senate he will champion a visionary Northern River diversions system transparently pricing and evaluating each on their cost/ benefit ratio of volume water provided versus setup cost, and built in stages and structured so water and land sold as part of the scheme then paid for the building costs over time.

He concludes "Water could flow via gravity from Hells Gate in North Qld to Murray Bridge or almost anywhere in the Riverina if we desired it.
23% of Australias runoff (in other words 6 times the water in the Murray Darling) flow runs out into the Gulf of Carpentaria each year.
Only 3% of the water in Lake Argyle is used each year. There is oodles of water if we are not brainwashed into the anti progress green ideas."

It is a plan that would stop Riverina farmers losing their water rights and bring greater prosperity to rural communities inland.

UK Guardian - So Right and yet So Wrong

2010-08-05T09:55:00.005+10:00

The UK Guardian praises Sceptics. What you say? I repeat, the UK Guardian praises Sceptics.

Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.

Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.

So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.

"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."

Then the Guardian goes on to say:

"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."

Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.

But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?

Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.

Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).

The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."

From the SPPI report, we find:

Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.

Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.

David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately

Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.

So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.

Our Australia

2010-07-08T09:53:00.004+10:00

BY DR EARNEST TAYLOR (Ret) WHO MIGRATED TO AUSTRALIA

I emigrated to Australia just over 45 years ago – On the ship there were Poms, Italians, Yugoslavs and Greeks, (Note – All European people!!) all looking forward to starting a new life in Australia. I arrived with 42 pounds in my pocket and that’s all I had to my name. Did I put my hand out?? Of course not – I got a job and paid my way just like everyone else who came to this country back then.

Now, it’s my taxes that subsidize these people who think they have God's given right (read Allah) to come here and criticize those of us who have worked for the country we now call home.

If I didn’t like what I saw when I got here I would have gone home – they have the same option. If they don’t want to become an Australian, they can…………….GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM – WE DON’T NEED THEM HERE!!!
Our Australia
When will this stop,
They want two of their own public holidays, because Christians have Christmas, Easter & good Friday,
They force our children to eat Halal Meat Pies and Sausage Rolls from the school canteens, so the Muslim kids can feel more Aussie, we were not consulted about this change, they went ahead and just did it.
Our foods are slowly all becoming Halal foods, our Bega cheeses, Cadbury chocolates even good old Sanitarium foods show the halal logo

Our Government is ALLOWING this to happen, it has to stop now, while we still have some people power to be able to stop it.

Regarding Our National Anthem

I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Arabic - enough is enough. No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written.

The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.

I am not sorry if this offends anyone, but this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ----and please pass this along

I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE Australia !

PART OF THE PROBLEM. Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Will we still have our Country of Choice and still be Australian if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in Australia because it is their Country of Choice??
And by our politicians who are allowing this to happen.
Think about it!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.

It is Time for Australia to Speak up.

Penny Sackett and Climate Hoax Policy

2010-07-03T15:48:00.004+10:00

Our chief scientist, Penny Sackett, at the climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week seems to be confused.

From the Chief Scientist's Website: The Office of the Chief Scientist supports the Chief Scientist for Australia in her role of providing independent advice to Government on a wide range of scientific and technological issues and her engagement with the science, research and industry communities, learned societies and other governments.

My interpretation is that, by independent advice, it would mean reviewing all science as it applies to Australia and not just science as it relates to the Labor Government's AGW policies. Ms Sackett has been known to say publicly that there are no peer-review papers against the hoax hypothesis of AGW. This is despite her knowledge that they do exist. Therefore she pushes the Labor Government line.

Prof Sackett said: "Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it (AGW), is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change."

Well, Ms Sackett, practise what you preach!

AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, says polarising debate on which policy is best to address climate change is often unhelpfully confused with the scientific argument for global warming.

At a climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week, Professor Sackett told The Age acting on climate change should be the role of all Australian political parties.

It was the responsibility of politicians, scientists and the public to engage with each other on the issue, she said.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,'' she said.

''The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, whereas the consensus within the political community - and those who elect them - about what to do about it is less strong.

She continued:"While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act."

Well, Ms Sackett is polarised on the hoax hypothesis and will not looks at the evidence against the hoax.

''My expectation as a citizen is that every political party would be engaging in learning about more the science, so together they can, in Parliament - where everybody has one voice regardless of their political party - make the most of an opportunity to make the best policies for Australia,'' she said.

Why, oh why does she not practise what she preaches. Why does she close her mind to the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is innocent?

Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics

2010-06-26T15:58:00.003+10:00

IN the Atlantic Wire in an article headed: Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics Heather Horn writes about a faulty article and makes her own mistakes. Take her first two sentences:

A new study claims to show that the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are less expert than their climate-change-believing peers. In other words: the climate skeptics aren't just in the minority--they're not very good scientists, either.

I will look at the flawed study in a moment, but "the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming.." Really Heather! If you wanted to talk about few, that is the number that wrote the flawed IPCC Assessment Reports. Less than 100! But Heather, look at Senator Inhofe's list....more than 400; Look at the Petition Project...31487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9029 with PhDs.

Then she goes on to say "they're not very good scientists, either." Well, sorry, Heather, but the "not very good scientists" are the IPCC scientists who, instead of being objective and looking openly at results, but instead tried to prove man-made warming then wondered why there was no current warming and then tried to HIDE THE DECLINE

Heather, go to and find out how flawed your original list is!

Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts

2010-05-06T17:36:00.002+10:00

Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts

Renowned Meteorologist Anthony Watts is including Newcastle in his Australian Tour

The Government has postponed the ETS but is still spending 2 billion dollars of your money ‘solving’ climate change. Find out why that money is not well spent.

Date: Thursday June 17 2010
Time: 6:00pm
Location: Newcastle City Hall King St, Newcastle
Entry: General: $20
Concession: $15

Speakers:

Anthony Watts – A television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air, operates a weather technology business, and runs one of the most popular science blogs on the internet. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.
Anthony will present advance results on his Surfacestations project to photographically survey every one of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, and talk about how the ‘official’ temperature record is unreliable.

David Archibald – an Australian–based scientist operating in the fields of climate science, cancer research and the author of Solar Cycle 24 – David will talk about the role of the sun, why the world will continue cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference.

Dr David Stockwell – Former Climate Effects Scientist living in Emerald QLD & author of the book Niche Modeling, David will talk about what we do know about climate change, how that contradicts warming models and how the CSIRO has got it wrong.

For enquiries call 0412474916 or visit www.climatesceptics.com.au(link in title)

Et tu, Julie?

2010-05-05T16:24:00.006+10:00

Today, the NZ Herald reported that "Kevin Rudd has suffered the biggest boot in the pants of any Prime Minister in the past 20 years."

They report that voter satisfaction with the PM has plummeted from 50 per cent to 39 per cent and then go on to say "money backing an election victory for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott began flooding in...."

Well, here's an even more worrying scenario. Although the ides of March have come and gone, what if, like Julius Caesar, The Ruddud gets knifed in the back, and mouths the words: "Et tu, Julie?" Can you imagine, Julie Gillard gets the PMship months before the election. Still in her honeymoon period and with the assistance of the MSM cheers squad, she annilhilates Tony Abbott wins the election and the Australian Government moves even further to the left.

Horrible thought!

What Rudd Government didn't achieve

2010-04-30T16:14:00.005+10:00

The Wall Street Journal describes Kevin Rudd as Australia's climate moralist-in-chief. (Link in title) This is an obvious reference to his previous "greatest moral challenge of our times" statement. They go on to say:

• Mr. Rudd's about-face raises serious questions about the courage of his political convictions;

• In November, Mr. Rudd declared it would be "absolute political cowardice" to delay cap-and-trade.

•Little wonder the Rudd government tried to bury cap-and-trade by announcing a big crackdown on tobacco companies yesterday.

They are right about him trying to bury the ETS with his great big new tax on tobacco, but this tax also will bring in the billions that he threw at the states to get them to agree to his Titanic-Deck-Chair-like shuffle of the financing of healthcare.

Meanwhile, closer to home, a letter writer, Shane Budden to the Australian has also accused Mr Rudd of moral cowardice.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/goodbye-to-the-greatest-moral-challenge-of-our-time/story-fn558imw-1225859617325

What has the Rudd government actually achieved?"

2010-04-24T17:43:00.002+10:00

Guest Post by Ian Christensen.

What has the Rudd government actually achieved?"

Here's the list so far:

1 Said Sorry several times.

2 Ratified Kyoto as it is about to expire without successor.

3 Organised "best and brightest summit" - if anything useful came out of that, I missed it.

4 Set up "fuel watch", a costly fiasco since abandoned.

5 Set up "grocery watch" another costly fiasco since abandoned.

6 Established the Australian Social Inclusion Board. This rarely heard of bureaucracy was set up because "Every Australian should have an opportunity to be a full participant in the life of the nation. Unfortunately, too many Australians remain locked out of the benefits of work, education, community engagement and access to basic services. This social exclusion is a significant barrier to sustained prosperity and restricts Australia's future growth". If there is any evidence to support this argument it wasn't included in the announcement. The Board has been described as "the biggest waste of tax dollars imaginable, towards some more Rudd-style feel-goodism". That was in May 2008. It probably did seem a big waste of tax dollars then, but it's been turned into a drop in the ocean by what's happened since.

7 Set up the home insulation program - what a disaster! It was a disaster because Rudd so wanted the Feds to be able to claim the credit he gave it to his Dept of Environment. This feel-good department, whose Minister's previous experience was lead singer with a rock band, is full of environmental scientists and climate change disciples with zero experience in dealing with the real world or delivering real programs. Four deaths, a minister demoted, (not sacked or had his salary reduced) and $50 million to former union heavy Greg Combet to fix it, and Combet says that may not be enough. And the claimed environmental benefits were grossly exaggerated. Rudd said he took full responsibility but I don't think he knows what that means - he's still PM, he's still drawing his salary and privileged superannuation benefits.

8 Set up SIHIP (Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program). This program was initiated by a Memorandum of Understanding in September 2007. In July 2009 the ABC (hardly a hot-bed of opposition to the ALP) reported on its Lateline program that it was yet to build a single house. That was despite $45.54 million of its $672 million budget having been spent. A government report dated August 2009 said the program was being criticised as: too slow to deliver; its governance was overly bureaucratic; the program is too costly in terms of unit cost of housing and administration. The revised program budget is still $672m with each new house expected to cost $450,000 or $529,000 after factoring in a proportion of administration costs and "contingencies". As at 1 February 2010, 2 of a target of 750 houses and 70 of 2,500 refurbishments had been completed.

9 Sent money direct to taxpayers and non-taxpayers to spend on large screen imported TV's to stimulate the economy and avoid the effects of what Rudd and Swan called the worst depression since the 1930s. In fact unemployment was 11% in 1991 and in 2009 didn't get to 6%, which not too many years ago would have been regarded as virtually full employment. Remember Beattie's target 5%? But if you can't maintain your popularity rating by sending money to voters what can you do?

10 Promised that every child in every school in Australia would get a computer. This program is moving so slowly that most of the people who were high school students at the time of the promise will have left school before they see a new computer.

11 Set up the $70m green loans mess - people gave up their jobs, paid $3,000 for qualifications and insurance to be trained as assessors, only to find the demand for green loans had been grossly exaggerated, many more assessors were trained than the program envisaged, and there was no work for most of them. The Courier-Mail reported on 2 Feb 2010 that: "The Federal Government predicted up to 200,000 home-owners would take up the loans and only 1,000 have done so ....instead of training 1,500 to 2,000 well-qualified assessors the Government permitted a blow-out and it is now estimated there will be up to 11,500 well-qualified assessors". The program has now been transferred to Penny Wong's department - that should fix it.

12 Turned a good budget surplus into such a huge debt that our grandchildren will have so much trouble servicing it that our population will have to increase rapidly. Blamed the global financial collapse while steadfastly refusing to give any credit to Howard or Costello for leaving them an excellent budget position to work with.

13 Didn't include any major infrastructure in the stimulus package because the effects would be felt too slowly (except for duplicating school halls and gyms).

14 Set up the home solar hot water initiative which was abruptly ended three weeks early with eight hours notice. This caused chaos in the industry, and many people intending to lodge applications missed out. Peter Garrett blamed a cost blow-out from the original estimate of $150 million to $750 million a year for the cut-back.

15 Disbanded "Work Choices". He had to do this because it was the unions' self-funded campaign against it that got him elected. Replaced it by giving back powers to the unions and re-instating the Industrial Relations Club. Set up Fair Work Australia with what seems to many as an over-representation of people with union backgrounds.

16 Changed the previous government's immigration laws so successfully that the exponential blow-out in illegal boat arrivals created a need for a lot more accommodation on Christmas Island.

17 Has recently suspended the processing of applications for permanent visas until after the election. presumably hoping there won't be a dramatic build up on Christmas Inland and that the electors will forget about the whole situation by the next election.

18 Said "the science is in on climate change" and claimed the Emissions Trading Scheme would fix it. Labelled sceptics as deniers.

19 Attempted to railroad the ETS through the Senate before Copenhagen for no other reason than it would have allowed Rudd to strut the world stage.

20 Went to Copenhagen taking 114 government free-loaders with him (one of the largest of the 190 delegations), at huge cost to the Australian taxpayer and the world's environment. I haven't seen any announcement of the cost of the junket (and I doubt I ever will), but I'm sure that whatever was going to be achieved, at least 100 of the free-loaders were superfluous to requirements. And it was fairly predictable that nothing would be achieved.

21 Refuses to debate the use of nuclear power generation to reduce pollution because it's against ALP and union policy.

22 Has opened one of 2,650 promised "trades training centres", one of 260 promised child care centres in schools and TAFEs, and 2 of 31 promised GP Super Clinics.

23 Attracted 752 retired nurses back into the profession using a return-to-work bonus. When they announced this scheme Labor hoped 7,750 would take up the offer.

24 Removed Labor's original election 2007 promises from the ALP website.

25 Promised to take Japan to court on whaling, but now says that will not be until November, probably after the election. As time goes on, I find I'm becoming less convinced about who is really at fault here, Japan for fishing in international waters, or the protesters for disrupting a legitimate commercial operation.

26 Has so far kept the Henry tax review secret for political reasons. Last week Rudd was saying it wouldn't be released until after the election. Wiser heads have since made him realise people won't vote for a new tax system when they don't know what's in it. And there must be something nasty in it, either unpalatable to the voters or inconsistent with ALP policy, or it would be heralded as another triumph for the Rudd government.

27 Announced he will keep 30% of the state's GST to fund 60% of their hospital costs. The 60% funding will have strings attached. The states have not been given any of the details, just the executive summary, and he expects them to agree to the proposals without knowing what the strings are, or what he might take back with the other hand under the Henry tax review. The announcement doesn't explain how it will improve delivery of hospital services, but it will probably add another layer of bureaucrats to the health system. Australia already has 450,000 bureaucrats looking after 290,000 health professionals. The announcement was hurriedly made in March 2010 after it had been pointed out that he had imposed a June 2009 deadline on himself for reform of the hospitals system. Perhaps this explains the lack of details. Refer back to the criticisms of SIHIP above. I think it'll be deja vu all over again. Rudd said if the states block his plan he will take it to a referendum, which of course is just grandstanding.

28. Turned Gillard loose with $16.7 billion to give building contractors, states and bureaucrats a feast in return for COLA.s and unwanted libraries and gyms – the insulation racket all over again in spades.

29 Last week he trotted out five senior ministers to criticise the Senate for being "obstructionist". The 5 were Jenny (SIHIP) Macklin, Penny (ETS) Wong, Lindsay (clean nose) Tanner, Nicola (new hospital system) Roxon, and Greg (Mr Fixit) Combet. I think Rudd is lucky the Senate has been obstructionist because if it wasn't he'd have more failures to add to his already impressive list. I noticed Julia was too smart to join the line-up of losers, and has managed not to be associated with too many of the above "achievements" – actually lying low while the schools building fiasco and criminal activities are unfolding. But watch your back, Kev.

As you might have guessed, I think Rudd's a dud. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if I've missed some real achievements I sincerely apologise.

I can't wait to hear how he will try to turn these "achievements" into something which will encourage the Australian electors to give Labor and, equally important, the unions another chance!

Of equal importance will be what the Liberals put forward to convince the electors that they will be any better. They will have plenty of cheap shots to fire but that is NOT the main game from an opposition seeking to become the government. They need to develop and put forward sound, well thought out and costed policies to get Australia out of the mess into which Labor has dropped us.

Feel free to add to or edit this list before you decide whether or not to send it on.

Obama's New Nuclear Policy

2010-04-07T07:38:00.002+10:00

I had to look at the date when I read this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100406/wl_afp/usnuclearpoliticsobama

Tue Apr 6, (Definitely not April 1)

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama unveiled a new nuclear policy on Tuesday declaring the United States would use atomic weapons only "in extreme circumstances" to defend national interests or allies.

Hello, does this replace the old "use nukes for frivilous reason?" Go-o-lee, I'm a little bit unhappy with the Dutch for removig troops from Iraq! Bob them!

What if we Bomb Iran?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIUizoA7Dnc&feature=related">

US TV Forecasts Global Cooling

2010-03-30T17:26:00.003+11:00

From Leslie Kaufman - The New York Times:

The debate over global warming has ..... created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as TV weather forecasters.

Kaufman is reporting on a study by George Mason University:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/gmu-wto032910.php

Many of the weathercasters said that having access to resources such as climate scientists to interview and high-quality graphics and animations to use on-air would increase their ability to educate the public about climate change.

However, despite their interest in reporting more on this issue, the majority of weathercasters (61 percent) feel there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about the issue of global warming. Though 54 percent indicated that global warming is happening, 25 percent indicated it isn't, and 21 percent say they don't know yet.
More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the statement "Global warming is a scam," the researchers found.

Meanwhile, The New American reprots that " Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3211-global-warming-alarmism-dying-a-slow-death

Alex Newman writes:

"Scandals
The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure. An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming. The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities. Commentators referred to the movement as a “cult,” and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous “solutions” all over the Internet. And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year."

He goes on to elaborate about the Climate Gate e-mails, followed by Glaciergate, Amazongate,Africagate, Chinagate, and the False claims about Netherlands.

He also says that, backed into a corner, Alarmists are fighting back.

And Alex's his last word?

Scaremongering to swindle the public out of money and freedom is an old trick. But hopefully, people will know better than to fall for it again next time.

We'll all be inundated

2010-02-22T11:53:00.002+11:00

The seas are rising, We'll all be inundated.

Yesterday, on the Insiders, the following conversation took place between Climate Alarmists David "we'll all fry" Marr and Fran Kelly.

Marr: "This week the Australian had a nice bloke from Bondi who'd been swimming at Bondi for years..... They had his picture on the front page saying, you know, I've been swimming at Bondi for 30 years and I haven't noticed the ocean come up."

Kelly: "Nonsense!"

Marr: "Complete Nonsense!"

Meanwhile, on the same day, over in the UK, the Climate Alarmist Newspaper Guardian had an article headed: Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

The article concludes:

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

Meanwhile, the World's leading Sea Level expert, Nils-Axel Morner maintains that sea levels are not rising. "...we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-1940. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year; 1.1 is the exact figure. Not more.

So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no
trend."

Climate sceptics are all red herrings and quackery

2010-02-19T12:30:00.004+11:00

Climate sceptics are all red herrings and quackery....At least according to Penny Wong.

In an article in the National Times today, Ms Wong (in an address to the first national forum on coasts and climate change) said: "The reality is that the Copenhagen Accord is an important and welcome step toward an effective global agreement on climate change.

It saw, for the first time, leaders agree to hold any increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius."

Oh, are they gods? Can they control the multi-facets of climate? The Vostok Ice-core samples show that temperature precedes rise in CO2 by 800+/-200 years. Can Ms Wong and her very large Climate Change Department change climate? It reeks of quackery to me!

She goes on to say: "Remember the people who have been barrackers for policy failure at home and abroad are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change."

I almost agree with MS Wong on this one! Mind you, I would make a few small changes to her statement: Remember the people who have been barrackers for a Cap 'n' Trade scheme, both home and abroad, are the same people who have been peddling misinformation and misleading information about the science of climate change.

She goes on to issue some misleading information: "....facts like that 2009 was the second hottest year on record in Australia and the fifth hottest globally, and that 2009 finished the hottest decade in recorded history." She relies on the IPCC for her support but the IPCC AR4 has been greatly disputed. One of the lead authors of the IPCC, Mr Phil Jones, would dispute the statement that 2009 was the second hottest year on record.

There is a section on the Government's Climate Change Website called "Science - facts and fiction." Having read through that section, I could see the fiction but couldn't find the facts.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/science.aspx

Catholics and Climate Change

2010-02-18T12:13:00.007+11:00

According to a Post called: Challenging the climate sceptics By: Ellen Teague (Link in Title)
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."

Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.

Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).

Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.

Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.

They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!

The Late George Carlin on Global Warming

2010-01-27T09:33:00.003+11:00

I think I posted this beforebut well worth a revisit.

For tender ears, there is some language.

If we had some Global Warming

2010-01-16T12:43:00.001+11:00

Hot on the Heals of ClimateGate - MediaGate

2009-12-02T15:39:00.003+11:00

The MSM have been found wanting; they have been pushers for the climate alarmists and, although they have also been pushed by the climate sceptics/realists, they ignored the realists and have not given a balanced picture of the media.

Seeing No Evil On Climate-Gate
The shameless denial with which major newspapers and networks have treated "Climategate" layers even more scandal on top of the original one: Mainstream media now co-conspirators with scientific hacks and big government.
The evolution of America's dominant media from guardians of our freedoms to enablers of government growth has been a decades-long story, their biases copiously chronicled.
But their response to the scientific scandal of the century, since it broke a week and a half ago, bids to become known as history's great unmasking of these supposedly independent journalists.
MediaGate-1 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513989

Media missing the Plot on Climate-Gate: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!
by Christopher C. Horner

To the credit of the New York Times, Associated Press and Washington Post — reliable outlets for promoting global warming alarmism, protecting those who craft it and marginalizing those who point out its weaknesses and excesses — they all ran stories in the past 48 hours addressing the documents somehow obtained from the computers of a UK university serving as the warming movement and industry’s Mother Ship. My great surprise is even greater because these outlets have demonstrated a pattern of only giving ink to embarrassing controversies after a week or so, once it appears that damage control is needed and the alarmists have gotten their story straight.
Yet the media have defined the story down, focusing on sideshow issues such as conspiring or hateful commentary about those who cause problems for the authors. Think of the wisdom of that approach: whose emails do not somewhere include such things? Surely this will also be proved with more emails stolen from skeptics’ computers, dispatching the story with an “everybody does it” narrative that entirely elides the meaning of the far more important admissions. Heck, Greenpeace used to peddle emails taken from my trash to the press, and got the Guardian and others to excerpt sections, out of context, with phony context padded around them and without calling me before running their “story”. That’s how they roll. They’ve no room for outrage. Still, that poses no resemblance to what’s going on now.
How it is possible that these media outlets’ regular “issue” reporters do not recognize the import of the fraud admitted to in the emails which, broadly, have been acknowledged as genuine?
MediaGate-2 http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
James Delingpole lists how MSM have (mis)reported the ClimateGate affair and then adds:

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).
But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/

Inflation hits the 12 days of Christmas!

2009-12-01T10:54:00.000+11:00

12 Days of Christmas' Items' Cost Would Top $87,000
Monday, November 30, 2009
By Dan Nephin, Associated Press

Pittsburgh (AP) - Making one's true love happy will cost a whopping $87,403 this year, a minuscule increase from last year, according to the latest cost analysis of the items in the carol "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

That's the grand total for the single partridge in a pear tree to the 12 drummers drumming, purchased repeatedly as the song suggests, according to the annual "Christmas Price Index" compiled by PNC Wealth Management. The price is up a mere $794, or less than 1 percent, from $86,609 last year.

The cost of buying each item just once is increasing this year to $21,466, up 1.8 percent from last year's $21,081.

Jim Dunigan, managing executive of investment for PNC Wealth Management, which has been calculating the cost of Christmas since 1984, attributed the modest increase to lower energy costs and fewer wage increases.

It's the smallest increase since 2002, when the cost actually decreased, according to PNC.

The main driver behind the higher cost is that the price of gold has increased 43 percent, bringing the five gold rings up $150 to $500.

Although wage increases were modest, nine ladies dancing, at $5,473 per performance, is the costliest item, surpassing the that of any of the material goods.

The most expensive goods are the seven swans a-swimming at $5,250, but their cost decreased 6.3 percent from last year's $5,600. Dunigan said their cost tends to be the most volatile because of supply and demand; they were up 33 percent last year over 2007.

Costs for the 10 lords a-leaping ($4,414 per performance), 11 pipers piping ($2,285 per performance) and 12 drummers drumming ($2,475 per performance) remained the same as last year. Dunigan says that reflects the labor market in which the unemployment rate rose to near 10 percent after sitting below 5 percent for much of the decade.

And for those who would shop online, a word of caution.

PNC says you'll pay $31,435, which is down from last year's online price, but still about $10,000 more than in the traditional index.

"In general, Internet prices are higher than their non-Internet counterparts because of shipping costs for birds and the convenience factor of shopping online," Dunigan said.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. checks jewelry stores, dance companies, pet stores and other sources to compile the list. While it is done humorously, PNC said its index mirrors real economic trends.

Besides putting out the list for fun, PNC makes it available to teachers across the country to teach economic trends.

While it's unlikely anyone would buy the items, Dunigan said one item is likely to please.

"We don't necessarily suggest picking just one, but it's hard to believe that gold rings wouldn't lead the list on a year-to-year basis," Dunigan said.

World First Sceptics TV ad Campaign

2009-11-18T11:56:00.001+11:00

The Fledgling political party The Climate Sceptics will be running a TV ad campaign on several TV stations in the coming week.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/about-us/resources/

President of the Climate Sceptics Leon Ashby says " I believe this is the first time climate sceptics anywhere in the world have made TV ads and put them on commercial TV. It is a long way short of the $14 million dollar campaign Penny Wong organised the Government to pay for with an alarmist message, but while being outspent by over 1,000 to one, it should give the public the message the Climate sceptics are a growing number of ordinary moderate people prepared to do what is right for the country`s sake by attempting to stop the senseless ETS idea.

"The campaign is focussed in Canberra but includes Sydney and even country areas in Victoria, NSW and QLD". It is timed to put pressure on Senators voting on the ETS bill and to assist our independent candidates Stephen Murphy and Bill Koutalianos running in Higgins and Bradfield respectively.

Mr Ashby says "The idea is to educate the community that 'we have been conned' because there is proof CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming and graphs of the official temperature records verify this . We feature diagrams also showing how useless an ETS will be as part of the campaign" he added.

The party`s 685 members are funding the campaign and more small TV ad campaigns are expected to follow.

Ashby, an Environmental award winner, says "It's obvious that people are confused what to think about an ETS so we want to educate the community on what the facts are. Unfortunately both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull are ignoring these facts."

The four ads feature a scientific paper that proves CO2 cannot cause Dangerous Global warming, The recent global trends showing there is no current global warming, the true cost of an ETS and why China's increasing rate of emissions make Australias 5 % reduction totally pointless.

The Climate Sceptics leader concludes "So whether you consider the logic or the science or the cost of an ETS show, it's a useless Idea. the Climate Sceptics will lead the way in explaining it to the public".

All four ads are on the web site to view and download at

or to view on Youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNu3iFBPglM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Ii1GGQkbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQbTTVEG-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl0F6hFnmPs

Follow the science on Climate Change

2009-11-02T11:39:00.006+11:00

The Financial Times advises us to Follow the science. It's a pity that they didn't follow their own advice.

They claim: "...especially in the Arctic, where summer sea ice has shrunk alarmingly over the past five years." oh, really - follow the science:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=01&fy=2004&sm=01&sd=01&sy=2009

The FT says: The geological record shows that natural change can happen extremely fast.."

Well, the 650,000 years of Vostok Ice core samples show that warming causes atmospheric Co2 to rise with a lag of 800=/-200 years. The Medieval Warm Period was approximately 800 years ago.

The FT says: (Climatologists) suggest a real (though probably small) risk that, by pumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels not seen for millions of years, we could trigger catastrophic, runaway global warming.

Hello!?! Look at the Vostok Ice Core samples - CO2 does not cause warming. And as for millions of years, well, it's a bit shorter than that. FT should follow the science. The determination of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method shows levels around 450 ppmv at c1820 and c1948.

FT should examine the science before it exhorts others to "follow the science."

Global Warming Hoax

2009-10-27T10:46:00.002+11:00

Are Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd traitors.

2009-10-26T10:10:00.002+11:00

Lord Monkton talks about loss of sovereignty.

See: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-kevin-rudd-traitor.html

Guide to "Layman's guide to the climate debate."

2009-09-21T08:47:00.003+10:00

Bronwyn Lay says: "One is a climate change denier, the other a believer..."
I think she actually means Anthropogenic Global Warming sceptic (realist) and believer (alarmist). If she asked any of the realists, they would tell her that they agree that climate changes, that climate has always changed.

So, both sides of the argument should be described as climate change believers.

The confusion came about when the alarmists realised warming had stalled and had to find an alternate term to global warming.

As a Masters of English Lit, I'm sure Bronwyn would prefer to use correct terminology.

Pollutant to be used to combat non-pollutant

2009-09-07T08:07:00.003+10:00

From Reuters: 15 Dec 06: By Ari Rabinovitch

TEL AVIV, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen says he has new data supporting his controversial theory that injecting the common pollutant sulphur into the atmosphere would cancel out the greenhouse effect.

Though such a project could not be implemented for at least 10 years, the data is aimed at appeasing critics of the idea he first championed in the scientific journal Climatic Change in August.

From THE LAND (Link in title) 5/9/09 by Deborah Smith

THE future of the planet could rest on risky and unproven technologies, such as giant sunshades in space to cool the Earth down, if global talks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions fail, a scientific report warns.

Other last-resort, global engineering projects that may be needed to try to avoid catastrophic climate change include forests of artificial trees, ships that spray seawater to form clouds, and injecting sulphur particles into the atmosphere to mimic volcanic activity.

There has been no possitive link to say that CO2 causes Global Warming, in fact, there have been papers to disprove that hypothesis. So, even though we have an oxymoronically named Carbon Pollution Reduction scheme here in Australia, no-one can say, truthfully, that Carbon (Dioxide) is pollution.

What is air pollution?

Air pollution occurs when the air is affected by chemicals or particles that are not normally present and have the potential to affect health. (NSW Department of Health)

So, carbon dioxide is normally present in air, and, although it does affect health, it affects health beneficially, whereas, sulphur is not normally present in air and does have the potential to affect health adversely.

So, here we have scientists from Britain's "most prestigious science body, the Royal Society," suggesting injecting a pollutant into the atmosphere to combat a non-pollutant.

The world's gone crazy, Cotillion.

David K still lies away! Blown Away

2009-08-25T16:53:00.006+10:00

In an article by David K. (Is his last name potassium?)

Headed: More lies by Climate Denialists.

Starting from the title, what a stupid statement! Is there anyone who denies that there is climate. Good Heavens, K, wake up and smell the roses.

I think he means Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Denialists. I proudly stick my hand up.

Then he says "The truth: There is a scientific consensus based on decades of research. And every major scientific organization in the world agrees." Another stupid statement. True scientists push and probe at any hypothesis. AGW is an unproven hypothesis. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Hey K! Have a look at petitionproject.org and count the more than 31,000 US Scientists that don't agree with your "consensus." Myth busted. Truth one is a lie!

Shot down, clown.

The truth: There really are only a handful of scientists that are most often cited, and they are all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny anything that might result in regulations they don't like.

31000 is just a few more than a handful. The handful is on the AGW alarmist side and they are all on the public purse. Oh Dear, K. Another blown away!

I couldn't be bothered to go beyond that. Surely you would start with your strongest points first and they have all been blown out of the water.

Don't worry. old deKay. All will out soon! The US chamber of commerce is out to expose the sham scam:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

2009-08-22T13:49:00.000+10:00

Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

Do you think we are being misled? If so, let your member know.

2009-08-21T17:32:00.003+10:00

Hi Folk!

I think we are being fooled by the media into thinking that the majority of people are in favour of the RET and the CPRS and the ETS.
The problem is that people aren’t being given the facts.
For the last 2+ years I ask anybody and everybody I talk to about AGW.
Up to date most haven’t had a clue what it is all about but they want to know and are frustrated that they can’t find out.
And 80%+ have this suspicion that they are in the process of being had.

But it would appear that the word is gradually getting out.
Just looking at the letters to the editor now compared to a year ago is enlightening.
A local radio station talk host has had an open line for the last two afternoons on AGW and the ETS.
By the end of today he was pleading for someone who was in favour of these bills to call in just to show he was willing to talk to the green side.
Nobody did.

I agree with (Party Member) Alan that talking to the senators, who are the ones voting on this issue would be beneficial, but I suspect that even if they have an open mind on the issue, the party line will rule.

Talking to the voters is hard, but at least talkback radio has the possibility of being our version of the US town-hall meetings, which have been decimating the proposed US government medical bill.

If our members called in to their local talk back radio at least once a week with a short to-the-point message we may start getting our message across.

The messages would need to be educational and focussed on just one or two points.

Eg:

• From unpublished observations it is clear that Antarctica and the Arctic are not rapidly melting. It is always interesting that the green, alarm raising photo spreads are always from “summer” photos when melting has always occurred.That’s a bit like showing January photos of our ski resorts and saying that their lack of snow is due to GW.

Do you think we are being misled? If so, let your member know.

• Although the government says that CO2 is the major GHG it’s not.
Water vapour and the clouds that form from it make up 95% of the GHG.
CO2 is only 4%. The reason why water vapour is left out is because the government can’t control it. And controlling all of us is one of their objectives.

Do you think we are being misled? If so, let your member know.

• Green Electrical Power.
Lets take a power plant that is rated at 100MW. If its fuel is coal or gas it will produce power for 20 hours a day or 20MWh/day. (megawatt hours/day) If it is solar or wind it will only produce 5 MWh/day.

And it is the MWhs that is what is available for people and industry to use.
That means we need 4 x 100MW green power stations to be installed to replace one carbon fuelled plant.
Not only that but because we don’t know when these green plants will produce their power we need an active carbon or hydro plant ready to take over when the wind drops or the sun goes down.

Do you think we are being misled? If so, let your member know.

The government has said that the increase to your power bills will be the only extra cost you incur. It has been pointed out that farmers and other businesses will also pass on their yet unknown extra costs,
But one that isn’t ever mentioned is your local council, who has huge power bills to keep street lights and office buildings, libraries, theatres etc & recreational facilities powered. Guess who will pay?

Do you think we are being misled? If so, let your member know.

So guys have a think about whether a “sowing the seeds of doubt” via talkback, the press or to general electronic sites would be beneficial.

Cheers,

John Ibbotson

Plans for Poverty

2009-08-17T14:27:00.000+10:00

Plans for Poverty.
12 August 2009

A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.

The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, today claimed that both the Turnbull and the Wong Decarbonisation plans were “Plans for Poverty”.

Forbes explains:

“The Turnbull plan aims to reduce 2020 emissions to 90% of the 2000 level.

“But we have moved on from the year 2000. To get back to 90% of 2000 would require a 20% cut on today’s activities. Moreover, the population by 2020 will be at least 30% above that in 2000. So the Turnbull carbon cuts will need to be more than 33% per capita.

“Emissions are produced by everything we do – if we use electricity, steel, cement, timber, cars, trucks, planes, ships, trains or food from farms, we will always produce emissions. Even people sleeping on the beach burn carbon food energy and emit carbon dioxide. How is each Australian going to trim carbon usage by 33%?

“2020 is just a decade away. There is no chance that wind, solar, geothermal or carbon burial will overcome their technical, engineering, infrastructure, environmental, transmission, economic and stability problems quickly enough to generate significant quantities of emissions-free base load electricity in that time.

“That leaves only three ways to achieve the Turnbull cuts – the Green Option, the Secret Plan or the Unspeakable Option.

“The Green Option requires less use of modern technology - a return to candles and chip heaters, wood stoves and wind pumps, charcoal burners and steam engines, sulkies and bicycles, horse power and sailing clippers, possum stew and kangaroo tail soup, mud bricks, shingle roofs and cement floors made from ant bed and cow manure. Some things will disappear unless Malcolm has plans for airships lifted by political hot air, for night-time power generated from moonbeams using lunar panels, or for vegie-steak produced from algae growing in backyard ponds of poo.

“Reducing population will definitely achieve cuts in emissions without cuts in living standards. Is that the Secret Plan?

“Or of course we always have the Unspeakable Option – a crash program to build nuclear power plants in the Latrobe, the Hunter, the Barossa, the Fitzroy and the Pilbara.

“Compared to these options, maybe a bit more harmless carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not so bad after all?

“The Wong plan and the Turnbull plan are Plans for Poverty.

“Both should be rejected.”

Viv Forbes
info@carbon-sense.com
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
0754 640 533

Mr Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, based in Australia, a rapidly growing organisation of scientists, engineers and voters concerned at the baseless and senseless demonization of the harmless plant food, carbon dioxide.

Trading F...wits

2009-08-15T11:38:00.004+10:00

From the SMH 15/8/09:

It was in the garden of the Hyatt Regency Coolum Hotel on Queensland's Sunshine Coast after a spirited debate on climate change at the annual Consilium conference of the Centre for Independent Studies.

The sceptic was one of Australia's most successful entrepreneurs, Peter Farrell, founder of ResMed, a company that generates about $1billion a year selling treatments for sleep apnoea.

Farrell believes that while climate change may be real, it's not because of human activity. And he's impatient with people who disagree. He met his match.

“Why is everyone a f---wit except you?” fumed Turnbull, the climate change believer.

Well, everyone but Mr Farrell, more than 33,000 US scientists, members of his own party like Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, Wilson Tuckey, members of his coalition like Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell, like respected Australian scientists such as Professors Carter and Plimer, Bill Kininmonth and the members of the newly formed Climate Sceptics party etc etc

Perhaps Mr Farrell should have replied: "“Why is everyone a f---wit except you?”

Trading carbon for disaster - Govt plots against people!

2009-08-10T10:52:00.003+10:00

What is it called when a government plots against its people? When people plot against the government, it is called treason; but the reverse...??

From Business Spectator - Commentary by Robert Gottliebsen 7 Aug 2009

-- “When a nation or a company is doing something stupid there will be a trigger that explodes the wrong strategy. In this case it is the Latrobe Valley brown coal power stations. These stations have huge debt repayments and emit a lot of carbon so the Canberra plan was that they should go broke and be bought at token prices.

-- … “Latrobe Valley companies will halt long term maintenance. TRUenergy has already announced this, but at least one or two other Latrobe stations follow … who in their right mind would spend cash when they have no idea whether the generators will be viable in the short and long term because of carbon charges and carbon policy is not known. Last summer every Latrobe Valley station went without a break down – the first time that has happened. This summer the odds are that they will break down. The companies are gradually abandoning long term contracts and going for the spot market which means that when there is a power station failure they will go into an Australian wide bidding process for power, sending prices through the roof. However, there is a limited amount that can be sent to Victoria so Victorians will have the main burden of the price hikes and blackouts."

-- “The banks will have the power to take control of at least one Latrobe Valley power station within six to nine months. They will be trying to extract as much money from the station as possible so will also cease long term maintenance and go for spot prices. If Australian and Victoria think the blackouts next summer are going to be bad wait for the following year when the full impact hits the nation.

Cullin' Kevin's Carbon Crisis

2009-08-07T10:08:00.004+10:00

Why Kill me, Cullin' Kevin?

Concern on Carbon Costs of Camel Cull.

A Statement by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.

The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, today claimed that the plan by Australian PM Rudd to cull one million camels may have unexpected carbon tax consequences.

Forbes explains:

“PM Rudd proposes to spend $19 million shooting one million wild camels.

“A big camel probably weighs about a tonne, so Mr Rudd is going to let a million tonnes of valuable meat rot under the Centralian sun.

“Each camel probably has about 190 kg of carbon sequestered in its body. As it rots and absorbs oxygen, this carbon will increase into about 700 kg of carbon dioxide which will then dissipate into the atmosphere.

“If the Australian Senate is silly enough to pass the Wong carbon dioxide Ration-n-Tax Scheme this shootout will thus trigger a huge carbon tax liability.

“At a carbon emission price of say $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide, the carbon tax on one million rotting camels would be about $28 million.

“If we add to that the actual cull costs of about $19 million and the carbon tax due on helicopter emissions and other activities, the total cost of the cull is about $50 million.

“This illustrates the dangers of costly unexpected consequences resulting from complex poorly designed bills being rushed through both Australian and US Legislatures by Mr Rudd and his buddy Mr Obama. Luckily Senators in both countries will probably reject this nonsense.

“If not, this $50 million invoice for the full costs of the camel shootout should not be presented to the taxpayers, but sent to Cull Commander Senator Garrett.

“This may convince him to chase up a few old Territorian buffalo shooters who could make a tidy profit at no cost to the taxpayer by culling the camels and selling the meat to Taiwan. Or we could sell permits to a few big game hunters. Or sell live camels to the Arabs.”

END (312 words)

Viv Forbes
info@carbon-sense.com
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition
www.carbon-sense.com
MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
0754 640 533

2009-07-30T18:06:00.001+10:00

Wilson Tuckey to speak at Climate Sceptics Protest - Aug 13th

He may be Joe Hockey's cranky old uncle, but Wilson Tuckey makes a lot of sense and stands up for his constituents.

Wilson opposes the ETS on both sides of the issue, i.e. need and effectiveness, but will say also that if a response is needed, other options are available that provide energy efficiency and security.

Wilson has agreed to be one of the speakers at the protest at Parliament House on the 13th August, 2009.

VOTE NO! Come Clean Malcolm

2009-07-26T15:38:00.007+10:00

There are not many Ph.D's in Australia's Federal parliament. There are even less members that have even a basic understanding of science.

Here's a scientific rule: Co2 is vital to life.

Here's a political rule: votes are vital to survival.

Here's a forgotten rule: Parliamentary representatives represent members of the public (let's call THE members of the public - MPs)

Glenn Milne in Today's Sunday Telegraph called Wilson Tuckey wacky because he was representing the views of his voters. Hello?!?, Glenn, do you understand the principles of democray?

But back to Ph.D's. Global Warming sceptic and nuclear power advocate Dennis Jensen,
(described incorrectly in "The West" as "Climate change sceptic") has survived yet another attempt to oust him from his seat, at least for the next few weeks.

Malcolm did not give Dennis much support.

Can it be that Malcolm will profit from an ETS? His ex-Goldman Sachs partners in conjunction with BigAl (profiting more than if he was supported by BigOil) have set up a Carbon Credit and Sustainable Energy Trading Company GIM.

Goldman Sachs (a big contributor to the Democratic Party) people involved with GIM are
Henry Paulson, Peter Harris, Mark Ferguson and David Blood.

We know Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange.
We know GIM owns 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Malcolm, I ask that you support your scientific member from the West, support Australia by knocking back the ETS and support honesty by declaring your financial interests in carbon credits.

And let's face it, carbon credits won't make one iota of difference to global warming.

Australia's carbon emissions don't mean a thing compared with US, China and India - oh, and don't forget Europe.

What a joke

Rural MPs climate change doubters

2009-07-24T12:23:00.005+10:00

From Adam Morton in the Land.

"A study examining the climate change beliefs of 11 rural politicians has found an overwhelming majority of Coalition MPs interviewed doubted that global warming was linked to greenhouse gas emissions."

People on the land (not THE LAND) have survived climate change for years, they know climate.

"But researcher Lizette Willinck said MPs had little grasp of what climate scientists had reported."

Does the researcher have a grasp of what climate scientists have reported; e.g. -

Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! '

Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans'A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research.

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

And the Land used the cliched photo of water vapour coming out of a tower.

My photo is of CO2 at work.

David K or should that be DECAY?

2009-07-23T08:34:00.002+10:00

Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics) [UPDATED: THE SUMMARY]

Climate skeptics like to claim that there are many independent scientists who refute the consensus of climate change. They love to cite folks like S. Fred Singer, Robert Carter, Roy Spencer (ahem, Dr. Roy Spencer), Pat Michaels, and Willie Soon. Each of these people is asserted to be some independent minded scientist bucking the trend.

Except it isn't true.

There really are only a handful of climate skeptic scientists.

So says cowardly cretin David K. And then he says comments are not allowed. Why?

Well, how does that compare with Senator Inhofe's 700 global warming deniers?

Isn't 700 a little more than a handful, David K?

How does your handful compare with petitionproject's 31,000 plus.

Would you say 31,000 is more than a handful, David K?

No wonder you are afraid to allow comments!

Climate Sceptics Party Not Evil Just Wrong

2009-07-16T10:11:00.002+10:00

Just noticed the Climate Sceptics Party have started their own blog and are promoting the Film "Not Evil Just Wrong."

Bill Gates blows hard or is it Soft

2009-07-13T14:50:00.003+10:00

Is there something in the water? The G8+ mob decided that they would stop temperature rising more that 2º. Strange people!

Now we have Bill Gates micromanaging the environment. He is going to stop hurricanes.

"Microsoft's chairman is among the inventors listed on a new batch of patent applications that propose using large fleets of vessels to suppress hurricanes through various methods of mixing warm water from the surface of the ocean with colder water at greater depths. The idea is to decrease the surface temperature, reducing or eliminating the heat-driven condensation that fuels the giant storms."

Sceptics to hassle Al Gore

2009-07-11T15:31:00.004+10:00

In the Sydney Morning Herald:

Sceptics to hassle Al Gore
Ben Cubby, Environment Reporter
July 11, 2009

STREET theatre and placard-waving protest are not generally the province of Australia's climate sceptics, but they are making an exception for a visit by the former US vice-president Al Gore.

The Climate Sceptics Party, a newly formed group seeking enough members to be a registered political entity, will picket Mr Gore when he addresses a business breakfast in Melbourne on Monday.

Anyone interested can find details from http://www.climatesceptics.com.au

The Great Climate Change Con Trick Exposed

2009-07-11T15:13:00.005+10:00

In his garden, James Delipole interviews Professor Plimer - tanned, rugged, white-haired sixtysomething — courteous and jolly but combative when he needs to be — glowing with the health of a man who spends half his life on field expeditions to Iran, Turkey and his beloved Outback.

The Great Climate Change Con Trick is exposed by Ian's wonderful book full of peer-reviewed references.

Let's forget any ETS or Carbon (dioxide tax.)

United breaks Guitars

2009-07-10T16:29:00.006+10:00

Canadian Musician Dave Carroll had a bad experience with his guitar.

"We were sitting at the back of the plane with the band, and a woman who didn't know we were musicians yells out, 'Oh, my God they're throwing guitars outside'," Carroll told local media.

After months of trying in vain to get the airline to pay compensation and help repair the instrument worth 3,500 Canadian dollars ($A3,850), Carroll changed tack.

So here wrote this song.

A miilion (internet) hits later he has a hit!!

Hypocrits in Science and Science journalism

2009-07-09T10:32:00.004+10:00

In an excellent article in the National Post, Lorne Gunther points out the hypocrisy of the Alarmist scientists and the MSM journalists:

"...the rhetoric of global warming and climate change has become even more frenzied since 2006, not less, even to the point where scientists skeptical of the warming theory are being gagged by the Obama administration and the UN.

...Recall that during the Bush years, scientists and environmentalist often claimed that U. S. government research into climate change was being stifled by the Republican administration. Never mind that during the Bush years the United States spent nearly $2-billion a year on climate research, almost all of it on the environmentalists' side, or that the government scientist who most frequently claimed to be censored -- NASA's James Hansen -- gave media interviews and speeches, published academic papers or wrote newspaper articles more than 1,400 times during the Bush administration. There were always journalists ready to regurgitate the insistence of activist scientists that their vital warnings on warming we being squelched, whether they were or not."

See my previous post on the suppression of EPA veteran Alan Carlin's report.

Where were the scientists protesting the suppression of information?

Where were the jounalists (who should be ever sceptical of spin) protesting the suppression of information?

Educational Protest against Al Gore on 13th July

2009-07-06T16:47:00.001+10:00

Protest

All members of the community sceptical that CO2 causes climate change are most welcome to join in an "Educational protest" outside where Al Gore will be giving a speech at Docklands on Monday 13th July.

If you are interested in attending the protest and want more info, email info@climatesceptics.com.au

Billets are available for anyone travelling to this event.

We will meet at the southern end of Southern Cross station at 6.15 am to get organised for a 6.30 am start.

Please bring a placard. Try to be humourous as well as educational.
T shirts saying "Global warming? C.R.A.P. Carbon Really Ain't Pollution" will be available to buy & wear.

Leaflets with 10 questions for Al Gore will be supplied for volunteers to hand out to those attending Al Gore's Breakfast.

The event will go from 6.30 am to 7.30 am (including a few speeches at the end.)
We will then have a cuppa afterwards at Southern Cross Station to debrief.
The event will be videoed and put on Youtube.

This event will be an important one in helping to turn the community`s view about climate change around . In years to come you may like to remember you were there.

Looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

Yours in Scepticism.

Leon Ashby
President.
The Climate Sceptics Party.

Planet Cools but hype heats up

2009-07-01T10:44:00.006+10:00

More and more the scandal of the Global warming hoax is being exposed.
Just this week, the US Environmental Protection Agency suppressed a report by one of their veteran PhD scientists throwing doubt on the guilt of CO2.
Following up on that, the Obama administration has issued a spin report full of inconvenient lies.

From an IBD editorial: " It then hired an activist media firm that specializes in environmental campaigns, to hype meaningless computer-generated Hollywood disaster scenarios:

Catastrophic sea levels, floods in lower Manhattan, California beaches permanently submerged. Ferocious hurricanes. Droughts. Food shortages, epidemic diseases, a quadrupling of heat-wave deaths. Aged sewer systems convulsing from massive storm runoff. Polar bears disappearing from the Arctic. It may be the most flagrant attempted con job in U.S. history. "

Save the Planet - Go Naked into the World

2009-06-27T10:19:00.004+10:00

Kathy Blanchard in the US Naturist Society's magazine advocates that we go naked to save the planet. You think I'm joking, don't you.

Here's her words: Thinking green is not a fad. It's an imperative. ...As naturists, we have an added tie to going green. ...Go nude. That may seem obvious, but how many naturists or nudists actually spend much time naked? Living more hours naked each day results in a dramatic drop in my laundry, which in turn reduces my water and energy use (along with my related bills). It also reduces the amount of soap I release.

No Comment

Reject the Cap-n-Tax Scheme

2009-06-25T10:00:00.002+10:00

Hail the hero, Godwin Grech

2009-06-25T09:33:00.004+10:00

In an "Australian" editorial entitled Whistleblowers play essential role June 25, 2009. "IT will come as little surprise to learn that The Australian is in favour of public service leaks. The more the better. Whistleblowing serves the public interest, increasing transparency, enforcing accountability and protecting democracy."

This man, who thought he was doing a patriotic duty exposing what he thought was government corruption, should be held on shoulders and marched around like a hero. Instead he has been used as a Labor Party whipping boy, has been ridiculed, has been silenced by Labor Senator Bullies, Bullied by his superior in the senate enquiry and has had his health harmed.

Shame, Labor Senators, Shame.
Shame Kevin Rudd, shame.

And to be perfectly even-handed, shame Malcolm Turnbull for creeping round the questions instead of championing the little guy whistleblower.

Incidentally, isn't the Labor party against bullying, or does that only occur when it isn;t themselves.

Reply to Professor Adams

2009-06-25T09:15:00.004+10:00

Professor Adams, being sceptical of scptics, has said In his view, it can be stated with confidence that climate change is happening...

Well, yes Peter. Climate change is happening, it was ever thus.

Prof. Adams noted that some of the skeptics have seemingly impressive credentials, but illustrated how nefarious their tactics can be by using a powerful analogy involving the statue of Venus de Milo:

"The scientist would say that the Venus de Milo is a statue of a woman, whereas the skeptic would say 'A woman has arms, and this statue has no arms; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a woman, and it can't be proven as such until the arms are found.'"

OK, take the statue as a symbol of global warming. A woman has warmth, and this statue has no warmth; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a global warming, and it can't be proven as such until the warmth is found.'"

Get rid of this stupid, deceptive title of Climate change and get back to the original global warming or is it that the warming scientists are against both warming and cooling.

An Open Letter to All Members of Parliament

2009-06-20T09:28:00.002+10:00

An Open Letter to All Members of Parliament
From the Carbon Sense Coalition

Soon our elected representatives will be asked to vote on Senator Wong’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

This scheme is not about carbon or pollution. It main effect is to provide for a cap on the human production of carbon dioxide, a colourless harmless natural gas. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen or water, the other two atmospheric gases on which all life on earth relies.

The bill will also levy a tax on whatever carbon dioxide is produced, and levy an excess production tax on anyone whose production exceeds the legal cap. It is a carbon dioxide Cap-n-Tax Bill.

There is no human activity whatsoever that does not generate carbon dioxide. Therefore any attempt to measure, cap and tax human production of carbon dioxide must eventually extend to every human activity (the UK government already floated the idea that every person be issued with a personal carbon ration card).

This is a very serious proposal, with wide-ranging implications for all aspects of economic life and personal freedoms. It could only be justified if there was a clear and urgent danger that additional human production of carbon dioxide is highly likely to cause dangerous global warming. There is no evidence that this is the case.

Neither the scientific questions, nor the cost benefit analysis has been subject to any critical independent analysis.

The diagram below illustrates the sequence of decisions that should be made before this bill gets assent. If the answer to ANY ONE of the boxed questions is “NO”, there is no justification for Australia rushing ahead with its Cap-n-Tax Bill.

This diagram, although light-hearted, has a factual basis and conveys some very serious messages.

It is highly unlikely that anyone could honestly answer “Yes” to every question, which is what is required to justify passage of the bill. This shows that there is a high likelihood that the bill will have NO CLIMATE EFFECT WHATSOEVER and thus a costly exercise in self delusion.

Our strong recommendation is that the Parliament rejects this bill entirely.

PETA - Please Eliminate These Activists

2009-06-19T13:55:00.002+10:00

From Associated Press:

Washington (AP) - The group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants the flyswatter in chief to try taking a more humane attitude the next time he's bedeviled by a fly in the White House.

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

We know that PETA uses similar tactics on animals that they "rescue" from animal shelters. They gently rescue them from shelters and release them outside; they release them from life and then dump them outside fast food restaurants!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

"DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA."

and -

This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the food industry, a frequent target of PETA campaigns, released data filed by PETA with the state of Virginia that shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003.

and PETA TOP DOG Ingrid Newkirk

"Besides, PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk's story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day."

We smell a RAT, Mr Rudd

2009-06-15T16:48:00.003+10:00

“Carbon Sense”
June 2009
The RAT Scheme.

“The RAT Scheme will destroy jobs, jobs, jobs.”

A statement/letter by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
13 June 2009

Any politician interested in preserving Australian jobs must vote against “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. It will not change the climate, it will do nothing useful for the planet and it will destroy real jobs faster than green jobs can be created.

This deceptively misnamed bill is not about “carbon” nor about “pollution reduction” – it is designed to Ration and Tax human production of carbon dioxide (CO2). It is correctly named “the Carbon Dioxide Ration and Tax Scheme” or “the RAT Scheme” for short.

There is no human activity or business that produces zero carbon dioxide – every activity (even sleeping on the job) produces CO2, either directly or indirectly. And for Australia’s chief industries, there is no feasible alternative on the horizon. Electricity generation, transport and tourism, agriculture and food processing, mining and mineral processing, infrastructure and construction, forestry and fishing, metals and cement, electronics and appliances – all depend for most of their energy on hydro-carbons – coal, oil and gas.

Even with a crash-through program of investment in alternative energy, the base load power will still be required, with boilers charged and staff on standby to cope with the many times when there is neither sun nor wind energy available. Given time and the political will, nuclear power could take up base-load power generation (at higher costs). But that looks unlikely to occur any time soon.

The first thing the RAT Scheme will do is establish a “cap” - a ration or limit on the production of CO2. (The exact level of the cap, and the base reference year will apparently be set using a roulette wheel in Penny Wong’s office.)

A Carbon Energy Ration Card from an Earlier Era.

The whole purpose of the cap is to force Australia’s backbone industries to reduce production of CO2 (unless of course they are exempted, but that would make the whole exercise even more pointless and unfair than it is now). There are no real alternatives available in many applications (solar aircraft? wind powered trucks? geothermal fishing trawlers?) Thus the cap must thus reduce production.

This throttling of our key industries by way of Emission ration permits will cause the first round of job layoffs.

Then comes the tax whammy.

Most industries will have to pay for their cap entitlement – ie they have to pay to do what they have previously been doing for free. Even after they have paid for production up to their rationed entitlement, any business which wishes to return to its pre-Rat scheme production levels (above the cap), must buy new ration permits in a speculative Emissions Permit market. This is another tax which has to be recovered from customers, other businesses or shareholders.

The first law of fiscal policy is this: “If you tax something, less of it will be produced.” This is the real aim of the RAT Scheme and it will achieve that aim.

There are always marginal businesses in all industries. An increase in taxes will cause a few of them to close their doors or move to a more enlightened country. And there are always nervous bankers ready to pull the plug because of the extra risk in the speculative carbon trading market.

In the green new world there is also no room for new projects or new jobs in traditional industries – any new project will need to force closure of an old project by buying its Ration permits on the market.

These new and uncertain taxes on existing production will cause the second round of job losses.

Even those businesses that survive the production cap, the ration fee and the excess carbon tax, will be forced to increase their prices to recoup the extra costs. This makes them less able to compete with imports in the Australian market, or with other exporters in the world market. Countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa, who have no intention of embracing the shackles of a RAT Scheme, will be the chief beneficiaries. Overseas is where the real new jobs will be created.

This unfair competition from foreign firms will cause the third round of jobs layoffs.

To date we have only looked at things from the perspective of existing industry.

There is also a whole gamut of global warming policies that will directly or indirectly subsidize regulators, inspectors, auditors, lawyers, bankers, carbon traders, international conferences, and the manufacture and operation of subsidised facilities such as wind farms, solar arrays, carbon forests and facilities granted exemptions from the costs everyone else must bear.

The second law of fiscal policy is this: “If you subsidise something, you will get more of it”.

We will thus get more of these costly subsidised things – the Climate Change Industry looks like becoming the biggest industry in the world. It will compete with real industry for materials, labour and rationed energy, but will not put cheaper food on our plate, cheaper or more reliable electricity into the grid or make a net contribution to tax revenue.

The growing costs of the Climate Change Industry must filter back to the real economy, causing more job layoffs.

Three places in the world have already tested the Green Job Creation Myth – Spain and Denmark with massive wind and solar power developments and California which tries to lead the world in everything green.

All three have seen loss of jobs as industries close or relocate because of costly or unreliable electricity supply. A recent study in Spain has concluded that more than 2 real jobs were destroyed for every green job created. In addition Spain has 17% unemployment, electricity shortages, and power costs up by from 30% (homes) to 100% (businesses). Denmark is selling unreliable wind power at a loss, and California’s climate madness has caused a huge loss of jobs and tax revenue.

Surely Australia can learn from the mistakes of others and refuse to pass this dangerous legislation.

For more information on Green Job destruction in Spain see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFlO6Bk-C0&feature=player_embedded

Viv Forbes Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23 Rosewood Qld Australia 4340
0754 640 533 info@carbon-sense.com

Following Prof Plimer's Heaven + Earth, Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge's "The Climate Caper"

2009-06-14T10:34:00.002+10:00

“Carbon Sense” Viv Forbes
June 2009

The Climate Caper

Another book written by a senior Australian Scientist, Garth Paltridge, is about to published by the same people who published Ian Plimer’s best seller “Heaven and Earth”.

This is what the publisher has to say:
“So you think the theory of disastrous climate change has been proved! You believe that scientists are united in their efforts to force the nations of the world to reduce their carbon emissions! You imagine perhaps that scientists are far too professional to overstate their case!
“Maybe we should all think again. In his book The Climate Caper, with a light touch and nicely readable manner, Professor Paltridge shows that the case for action against climate change is not nearly so certain as is presented to politicians and the public. He leads us through the massive uncertainties which are inherently part of the ‘climate modelling process’; he examines the even greater uncertainties associated with economic forecasts of climatic doom; and he discusses in detail the conscious and sub-conscious forces operating to ensure that scepticism within the scientific community is kept from the public eye.

I have not yet read "The Climate Caper” but Ray Evans has, and had this to say:
“Having read the manuscript I can endorse this book without reservation. It is written by a scientist who was at the top of the scientific establishment in Australia, and who saw at first hand the intellectual corruption which went hand in hand with government funding of science "research".

“The book is written in a whimsical style, reminiscent of P G Wodehouse, and is difficult to put down.”

About the author
Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in Tasmania as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre.

His research ranged from the optimum design of plants to the economics of climate forecasting. He is best known internationally for work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.

He was in industry for a while as Director of the Environmental Executive of the Institute of Petroleum. He spent various separate years overseas in postings concerned with research or research administration - in the UK, Geneva, New Mexico, Colorado and Washington D.C. In Geneva he was involved in the early development of the World Climate Program. In Washington he was with the US National Climate Program Office at the time of the establishment of the IPCC.

To order :
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=113

White House not interested in Evidence re AGW!!!

2009-06-09T17:48:00.003+10:00

From Melbourne Newspaper - The Age.

Fielding's climate mission. Adam Morton June 6, 2009.

Quote: "THE fact-finding mission to the US of Family First senator Steve Fielding has culminated in him giving senior White House staff graphs provided by climate change sceptics and asking why he should not believe them." ....

"Senator Fielding said he found that Dr Aldy and other Obama Administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science."

Looks like the White House (NOW) is not interested in evidence. Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Malcolm Turnbull all agree NOT to look at the evidence.

How STUPID are our politicians? At least they should say: "Thank you. I will look at that and considered it."

NO! It's case closed. Idiots.

New Climate Change Minister already puts foot in mouth

2009-06-09T17:36:00.002+10:00

From the Australian: Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent | June 09, 2009

Mr Combet is reported as saying: "....the government has ...taken into account obviously the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which is obviously considered the international body of scientific evidence about climate change.."
If Mr Combet has read the "Summary for Policy Makers" issued by the IPCC, (to paraphrase)
"which is obviously considered the small body of political spin about climate change.."
he is deluded. He is as Wrong as Ms Wong.

'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers'

2009-06-05T23:48:00.001+10:00

Shouldn't it be : "At what point do we jail or fine the irresponsible people who are pushing global warming alarmism and lining their own pockets?

Traitor brought himself down

2009-06-05T09:56:00.005+10:00

From the Canberra Times: 5/6/09
Dumped Defence Minister has blamed traitors for his political demise after he became the first ministerial casualty since the Rudd Government took power.

He tried to get his brother's company NIB and US health giant Humana an unfair advantage on a defence contract!

''At that point I thought I was sailing too close to the edge in terms of the ... ministerial code of conduct,'' Mr Fitzgibbon said.

(Mr Fitzgibbon has blamed traitors for his political demise after he became the first ministerial casualty since the Rudd Government took power.)

Turnnng your back on the Australian people by not having open access to defence contracts could be deemed traiterous, Mr Fitzgibbon, so, why are whistleblowers exposing you traitors? Shame on you!

ABC TV doesn't know what they are talking about!

2009-06-05T02:19:00.003+10:00

On Lateline 3 June 06 - both Tony Jones and Michael Rowland showed the didn't know what the were talking about.

Tony Introduced the segment with: "Independent Senator Steve Fielding says his attendance at a climate change sceptics' conference in the US has given him plenty of food for thought."

Michael Rowland followed up with: "This conference of climate change sceptics has been organised by the conservative Heartland Institute, a group that insists global warming is not a crisis."

If they did just a little research, they would have found that the scientists at the Conference all know that Climate is changing, in fact, they know that climate has always changed.

They also know that the AGW alarmists have not shown any proof to back up their claim of anthropogenic global warming.

WAKE UP JONESY!

French "Spiderman" Comic Book Hero climbs Sydney Building

2009-06-03T16:06:00.006+10:00

He calls himself Spiderman - a comic book character and he suffers from vertigo??? A spin Doctor? He apologised for any disruption he caused, but said he was motivated by his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

As Al Gore says: "Do these go together? It's complicated."

Al Gore promotes the falsehood of Anthropgenic Global Warming to line his pockets from Speaking Fees and, even more, from trading in Carbon Credits. Does this clown "Spiderman" do it for money?

I don't think Kevin Rudd believes it anymore, Al "Do these go together? It's complicated" Gore must have known that if he put those two graphs together they would show that CO2 rises followed Global temperature rises.

The Frenchman admitted he suffers vertigo - a condition characterised by dizziness...

Ahha! Dizziness, that explains it. He confuses Climate Change with CLIMB-IT change!

Penny Wong Wrong Again

2009-05-31T12:59:00.002+10:00

We already knew that Penny Wong was not up on her science knowledge, but today, on Sunday with Laurie Oakes, she showed her lack of mathematics. In response to a question on the Murray Darling Basin, she said in part: "We're facing an unprecedented challenge here, Laurie. In the last three years, the long term - the average inflows into the system are about one-fifth of what they are on average."

What?

"...the average inflows into the system are about one-fifth of what they are on average."

Maybe could I add that the average accuracy of her answers on global warming are about one-fifth of what they are on average?

Ex- Union Boss threatens industry

2009-05-31T11:39:00.004+10:00

From the article in the Brisbane Times datelined: May 31, 2009 - 11:09AM"

"Parliamentary secretary for climate change Greg Combet last week warned that business could lose out on assistance if the (CPRS)scheme had to be rewritten next year."

Using Unions tactics threatening business.

You can take the Combet out of the Unions but you can't take the....etc

Space Junk Painted white to save planet

2009-05-30T11:09:00.002+10:00

Following on from a previous report that the Obama administration to shoot junk into space to block the sun-light, (the first space litterer?) now we have Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist running the Obama Energy Department, suggested this week that — in terms of the greenhouse effect — painting roofs and bleaching road surfaces worldwide would have the same impact as taking every car off the road for more than a decade.

What about going one step further and painting the upper side of the junk white to reflect the sun?

Are we sure he won the Nobel Prize? Oh, yeah, so did Al Gore.

Poor PM Rudd doesn't understand budget

2009-05-21T16:58:00.002+10:00

From a Radio interview on Sydney Am Station 2GB today.

ALAN JONES:

Indicating that he doesn't really understand the figures but he said "the debt would peak at a gross figure of 13.8 which comes out at about 300" so they won't use the word billion or whatever but the statement is completely wrong because a gross figure of 13.8 there has been no value attached to that in the Budget at all. The 300 that he is talking about of course is what it is going to be in this cycle who says at the end of four years.

MR COSTELLO:

It is all true. Now let me give you another example. I was in the Budget Speech in the House of Representatives on the Tuesday night. The Budget Speech was delivered to all of us. I flicked through it looking for the bottom line. Now Mr Swan did not mention what he was budgeting for.

Marvellous, a PM who doesn't understand his own budget, a PM who crosses out employee shares whislt his filthy rich wife uses this very good incentive with her own staff.

When will the public wake up?

More Uninformed comment from Gair Rhydd

2009-05-18T15:53:00.002+10:00

From Gair Rhydd - Cardiff's student weekly:

What are they teaching the students of Cardiff? This arcticle says that MELTING SEA ICE could cause a rise in sea levels (yep, RISE!) and immerse cities such as New York and London under water.

Science 101: Put an ice cube in a glass of water, mark the level and check the level after the ice has melted.

Sheesh!

Give global warming sceptics a voice

2009-05-15T13:04:00.004+10:00

Very interesting article in the Atlanta JC by J Winston Power

"The “science is settled” side is pushing massive plans in Congress to reduce carbon dioxide. But the science is not settled. If it were, we would have great confidence in all these statements:
1. The world is getting warmer.
2. That’s more bad than good.
3. Humans are causing the warming.
4. We know how to fix the problem.

We-ell, Is the world getting warmer. It warmed as it came out of the little ice age around 1850. During the 20th Century it warmed about 0.6ºC and from 2007 to 2008 it cooled by o.6ºC. In fact the world has been cooling since Al Gore's 41 Inconveniet Lies movie was released.

2 - Warmer is better.
3.- Unproven
4.- What problem???

Press Release by Viv Forbes - Carbon Sense Coalition

2009-05-08T09:09:00.002+10:00

Press Release by Viv Forbes BScApp FAusIMM FSIA
Chairman The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340
0754 640 533
info@carbon-sense.com

Introducing Carbon Cops and Narks.

“Giving to any government the power to monitor, control or put a tax on carbon emissions is giving that government the power to monitor, control and tax any or every aspect of human life it may choose to invade.

“Let’s not be fooled by being told by politicians and bureaucrats that their carbon trading scheme will merely start with a few big carbon emitters, whilst the farming sector or other sensitive sectors of the community will be left out in the first stage of this thoroughly anti-human process.

“Once we accept the principle that carbon should be monitored, controlled and taxed, we open the door to the most invasive kind of bureaucratic meddling, and to all the carbon pimps, snoops, cops and narks who want to stick their noses into every aspect of the way we live, whether it is the kind of car we drive, our holiday destinations, our pleasure boat, or even the food miles accrued in our choice of food.”

Bob Brimsmead “An Irrational Fear of Carbon”.

We recommend you check out the full article at:
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_An_Irrational_Fear_of_Carbon.html

The Future of Carbon Caps and Taxes.

We don’t want to postpone the Cap-N-Tax Bill, we want to kill it. We certainly do not want it passed into law now.

The worst thing that could happen is still a possibility – so many concessions, exemptions and compromises are agreed that the Cap-N-Tax bill is passed by the Senate. All the bureaucracy, regulations and reporting will become law, but there will be no immediate obvious economic effects. Then, once the inmates get used to the handcuffs, the screws will tighten – exemptions will gradually disappear, permits will cost more, caps will be reduced, green subsidies will increase. By then the whole thing will become ingrained, with a whole climate change industry of vested interests created. We will never get rid of it, even long after the idea of global warming is forgotten. So we need to redouble efforts to get our message out: “Kill this bill now and make sure it stays dead”.

Please help us by sending this message to friends, associates, media and politicians – preferably to a different/bigger group from last time.

Viv Forbes

Rudd doesn't blow his top - but does! Wobbly#2

2009-05-08T08:27:00.002+10:00

From the Daily Telegraph:

"The Prime Minister - who tore strips of an RAAF flight attendant over food service on a VIP flight - reportedly became agitated when Diggers couldn't locate a hairdryer for a photo opportunity."

Dear-oh-dear, because he couldn't blow his top...he blew his top

Ms Wong Wrong again!

2009-05-07T09:06:00.007+10:00

In an interview with "Webnewswire" Ms Wong, who didn't complete schoolgirl science, nonetheless created some schoolgirl-like howlers.

1 We think it’s in the national interest to try and secure a global agreement we know Australia needs....Well, we all know, even you MS Wong, that a global agreement will never happen. And why do you think that Australia needs a Global Agreement?

2 Carbon Pollution - oxymoron.

3. I think it is disappointing that Mr Turnbull continues not to listen to business calls for certainty... Like you, Ms Wong, Mr Turnbull will not listen to calls to look at the science rather than the political spin - IPCC; Al Gore etc see http: climatesceptics.com.au

4...not to listen to the science....Hello-o-o, who's not listening to the science Ms Wrong er Wong!

5...and to environmentalists who say we need a plan in place to reduce our carbon emissions... The Crazy environmentalists, yes. Ms. Wong, look at listentous.org.au. It is an anti ETS website set up by environmentalists - The Australian Environment Foundation - a different kind of environment group caring for both Australia and Australians.

KFC and the Budget Deficit

2009-05-07T08:51:00.003+10:00

By a couple of back of the envelope calculations and bribe handouts of $900 and $1000 dollars, our amazing PM has managed to get his popularity to around 64%.

What has KFC got to do with it you say?

Well, it's Kev's Financial Crisis. And it has hit the fans. He now must start to get a pay-back - that's right he spent all our taxpayer dollars and is deeply in debt. So he must hit us in his budget next week. The filthy-rich Rudd will hit us where-ever he can.

But, Kevy, I have a solution. Close down the completely unnecessary Climate Change Departments and all its Clinging Qangos and all its handouts and you might almost wipe out your horrific deficit.

Rudd's Embarassing Back-down on ETS

2009-05-05T14:34:00.002+10:00

On the 7:30 report, left wing journalists Kerry O'Brien and Michael Brissenden were mildly critical of left wing PM Rudd.

Kerry Oh-Oh-Oh- O'Brien:

"Having said repeatedly that he would not delay the introduction of his carbon pollution reduction scheme next year, the Prime Minister announced today that he would be doing precisely that, putting it off until mid 2011, and softening the cost of the scheme for business until mid 2012."

Michael Brissenden:

"The Government had planned to begin implementing its carbon pollution reduction scheme by the middle of next year. Just last December the Prime Minister said a delay to that timetable would be reckless and irresponsible, bad for the economy and the environment. But yesterday's definitive position it seems is not necessarily suited to today's realities."

Slap on the wrist, PM!

And the Left wing ABC whose editorial policy says:

The board requires the ABC to demonstrate impartiality in two ways:

1. ….the board requires impartiality at the content or program level….

2…This means that while individual items of content can take a particular perspective on an issue, the ABC must be able to demonstrate at the platform level that it has provided its audience with a range of different perspectives on the subject under consideration. …..

Well, ABC, where is the the different perspective? Where is the alternative view from the around 50% of the populace that believes, make that knows, that AGW is a big hoax and to inflict a Carbon (Dioxide) Pollution Reduction scheme is completely unnecessary?

Rudd and Wong and their embarassing backdown

2009-05-05T14:05:00.005+10:00

Kerry OB on the 7:30 report quotes Kevin 747 Rudd in the middle of the KFC (Kev's Financial Crisis)
"Penny Wong, it's only a few months ago in mid December that the Prime Minister said, and I'll quote, "It would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment," to delay the introduction of your carbon emissions trading scheme."
and goes on to mention an embarassing U-turn.

Penny says inter-alia: ..."very significant global economic recession"... and ..."very substantial global economic crisis"
and between these she says: "...what we're trying to do is to shift Australia to a low-pollution economy."

A very noble aim, Penny, and I'm sure that there is not one Australian that would agree with a low-pollution economy. But, how do you pollute an economy?

Then MS Wong blows it! "....if you don't put in place a mechanism to reduce your carbon (dioxide) pollution..." Please explain?

Can you show us, Ms Wong, who didn't even do high school science, one bit of scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide is pollution?

Then Kerry Oh-Oh-Oh- O'Brien says (timidly?) "Dare I suggest that this policy back flip has been framed as a political exercise for the next election?"

Another Hard-hitting interview from a hard hitting left wing journalist to a left wing politician on a left wing station that sponsors a left wing think tank AusSMC.

Rudd treats Australians with contempt

2009-04-27T09:52:00.004+10:00

Why is it that Rudd rhymes with dud?

Our second most popular Prime Minister gained much of his popularity by handing out $900 and $1,000 bribes from taxpayers funds and borrowed funds. Loans all taxpayers will have to repay. He lied his way into office by stating that he was a fiscal conservative and told lies about his family background.

Now he has gone further, as the Canberra Times reports:

" Ministers are required to answer parliamentarians' questions on notice within 30 days. The document details questions about Resource Minister Martin Ferguson's overseas travel and the number of media and communications staff employed in his department. In one case, the Resources Department sent its response to the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet on November 21 last year, but MrRudd's office has still not cleared the answer.

The shadow Special Minister of State, Michael Ronaldson, said the Prime Minister was treating Parliament and the public with contempt.

'This is an absolute disgrace,' he said yesterday.'Here we have a Government preaching openness and transparency, but deliberately hiding embarrassing information. Once again, this Government demonstrates that it runs on spin and hypocrisy' "

Vote for Rudd - get a dud!

Professor Robert Manne gets his facts wrong again

2009-04-25T10:17:00.008+10:00

In an opinion piece in the Anzac Day issue of the Australian, Professor Manne gets his facts wrong again. For some previous errors of truth by Manne see Paul Sheehan's excellent book "Among the Barbarians."

Some errors in his article:

• (Ian Plimer) describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"

Think about it, Robert. Is he calling himself a part of the "forces of darkness?" Are all the scientists that he refers to part of the "forces of darkness?" on the other hand, are you, Professor Manne (a non-scientist) part of the "Forces of darkness?"

• The work of these scientists has been summarised in four cautious reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the most recent, the IPCC argued that the evidence for human causation of climate change was unequivocal.

Well, not quite unequivocal, Professor. They actually said "very high conﬁdence" which represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance
of being correct. Mind you in the same report they also said "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Warming is a bit different to man-made or as you say "human causation" warming.
These IPCC "scientists" also said in their AR4: "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas." That is correct, if they pay no regard to water vapour. Science tells us that the most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

• Many regard the work of the tens of thousands of climate change scientists as fraudulent and the IPCC as a sinister and vast international conspiracy.

Hey, Prof, you got that right. If you read the fourth Assessment report, and the science in the reports behind the Summary for Policymakers, you will find that the Summary for Policymakers is not supported by the science. If you call that a conspiracy, then so-be-it. As to the "tens of thousands of climate change scientists" - how many of them are independant of Government Grants?

• In the other camp are a few dozen scientists.

Wrong again - As an example, Professor, just google "petitionproject.org" more than 30,000 scientists, look also at the International Climate Science Coalition, The Australian Climate Science Coalition, The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
See also www.climatesceptics.com.au

How can one learned Professor get it so wrong, so often?

Peter Garrett keeps his head above water

2009-04-25T09:46:00.006+10:00

Did Greg Roberts intend the pun when he said:

FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has moved to water down his claim that sea levels could rise by 6m as a result of the melting of Antarctic ice.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said Mr Garrett had been alarmist. "...but using alarmist and patently wrong information to back his case will do nothing to instil confidence in his arguments," hesaid. "If Mr Garrett is going to get it so wrong on sea-level rises, how can people have confidence in comments he makes on glacier melts?"

Interesting, because most glaciers in the world are now advancing

James Cook University geophysicist Bob Carter said Mr Garrett's claims were typical of the political misinformation surrounding the global warming debate. "Like Al Gore and the other dark greens that they seek to mollify, politicians completely fail to comprehend that we live on a dynamic planet Earth," Professor Carter said.

Definition from RITA (Research and Innovation Technology Administration):
Ice Shelf: Seaward extension of an ice sheet, floating but attached to the land on at least one side and bounded on the seaward side by a steep cliff rising 2 to 50 m or more above sea level.

If a floating ice shelf melts, sea level will not rise, Peter.

Facts from Landcare Research:
• Antarctica is the 5th biggest continent and 10% of the earth's land area.

• Antarctica's total area is 14 million km2 In summer, there is another 2.5 million km2 of sea ice, which increases to 19 million km2 in winter, more than doubling the size of Antarctica!

• Antarctic ice which at its thickest reaches 5 km in depth, comprises almost 70% of the earth's fresh water.

• Antarctica has the lowest recorded temperature; -90°C at Vostock in 1983. Inland, temperatures range from -70°C in winter to -35°C in summer. Corresponding figures for coastal regions are -30°C and 0°C.

It is a rare occasion when the temperature rises above freezing, so most melting must come from rises in ocean temperature.

Alarmists show cowardly colours

2009-04-25T07:48:00.003+10:00

Marc Morano reports that after UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had flown from England to appear at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday.

Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

As the science closes in on the hoaxing alarmists, they are getting more and more desperate. Will any reports be made about this in the Main Stream Media

Conflict between IPCC and NASA's GISS

2009-04-18T14:38:00.005+10:00

In a report by The Associated Press 17 April 09 by Randolph E. Schmid.
IPCC lead researcher, Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona said:

As global warming progresses, the increases in temperature may make the normal climate pattern more extreme, producing even more severe and prolonged droughts than those of the past.

This contrasts directly with a paper published in Journal of Climate 10 (December 1997.)

This paper showed that increased heat warmed the ocean, causing more evaporation and hence more precipitation. Seems simple to me Jonathan - over to you!

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1997/ Dai, A., I.Y. Fung, and A.D. Del Genio, 1997: Surface observed global land precipitation variations during 1900-1988. J. Climate, 10, 2943-2962, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<2943:SOGLPV>2.0.CO;2.

New Scientist doesn't know the Old Science

2009-04-18T10:53:00.004+10:00

From a report dated 13Apl2009 by Douglas Fox in New Scientist:
We know that Antarctica froze 35 million years ago, when its detachment from South America unleashed a circumpolar ocean current that isolated it from warmer parts of the world. What we do not know is whether its ice sheets have stayed frozen or melted and reformed many times since then.

It is an urgent question. Understanding how Antarctica's ice responded to past climate swings will help us to predict how it will react as temperatures rise in the coming decades. The mighty ice sheet covering West Antarctica could unleash enough water to raise sea levels by 5 metres were it to melt.

Andrill's results reveal a breathtaking picture. They show how the West Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed and regrown at least 60 times in the past few million years. Andrill predicts that it could once again tip toward collapse by the year 2100.

Hello? Didn't Mr Fox learn in Science 101 that the melting of FLOATING ice makes no difference to sea levels.

Update: "Didn't the coward that left an anonymous message, learn in Definitions 101 that an Ice Shelf is a thick floating platform of ice?

Global Warmng Flushed down the toilet

2009-04-15T19:53:00.003+10:00

From Skeptic's Corner - (See also http://www.climatesceptics.com.au)

"Notable Quotes"
"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations."
Richard S. Lindzen -the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

That's Steam, don't pollute minds

2009-04-15T09:12:00.002+10:00

From I Love Carbon Dioxide.com about

.. a story from Reuters that combines the worst of both worlds, media biased portrayal with political black mail. Let's start with the media part. There is a two photo slide show with the story, here is the first photo (left);

Now I don't know how many people know that those towers at power plants are cooling towers and coming out of the top is nothing more than steam. In England a survey showed that two thirds of people thought what was coming out was pollution. I would guess it is the same everywhere. This is done to protect the environment so as not to discharge hot water back into lakes etc.
The fact that the media uses these pictures constantly as an iconic representation of global warming is both misleading and ironic. The irony being that water vapor is in fact the number one greenhouse gas, though man's contribution is minuscule. Besides that is not what our purveyors of truth in the media are trying to portray anyway. When you see pictures like the above it is meant to represent pollution. The fact that it is not is obviously unimportant to them. Of course they are just following the lead of the most famous of such misdirection.

Visit the link above to see the photos. Australia's very even reporter (NOT) the ABC regularly use similar images of water vapour coming from cooling towers at power plants to support stories about the bogus fact CO2 equals manmade global warming.

MainstreamMedia at last looking at both sides?

2009-04-14T16:52:00.006+10:00

In the Fairfax Paper - The Independant Weekly there is a report that challenges the "science" as quoted by Bob Brown, Penny Wong and, presumably, the IPCC. It talks about Professor Ian Plimer's new book "Heaven and Earth" and also the visit to Australia of Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four.

He is delivering a lecture in Mount Gambier on May 23 about how Greenhouse gases cannot cause climate change.

What the article fails to mention is that Dr. Zagoni and also David Stockwell are addressing a meeting at Newcastle University at 1pm tomorrow - 15/4/09. For details, call President "The Climate Sceptics" phone: (08) 87259561 or (08) 87235550.

Somehow, I think that the tide is turning.

The chair of the Australian Environment Foundation, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, was heard today on Sydney Radio.

What will happen to the IPCC and the "sell-out" scientists when the fraud is exposed?

Kyoto Box pulls wool over Pachauri's eyes

2009-04-13T16:06:00.005+10:00

From Grist.Beta:

Kyoto stove wins $75,000 FT climate change innovation competition about a cardboard box that uses sunlight (global warming) to cook.

and one of the comments:

From RUserious
I thought new had to be new to be new?
I am all for solar cookers (I have designed and built several of them myself), but, I am not thilled about someone winning a $75,000 prize for an invention that has been around for several hundred years. This solar box cooker looks like the one Napoleon's troops were using in the mid 1800's. The only apparent difference is cardboard instead of wood and plexiglass instead of glass.

Also from the article

Methane from ruminants is estimated to be responsible for 20% of global warming;

From a recent paper by Dr Gerrit van der Lingen entitled "Ruminants not Kyoto villains."

Reducing methane emissions from ruminants has now become one of the major targets of anthropogenic (man-made)-global-warming activists. Recently, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), called on people to give up eating meat, on the grounds that the digestive methane given off by cattle contributes more to greenhouse gases than all the world’s transport. Someone was wondering what Dr Pachaudri was going to do about the 400 million sacred cows in his homeland India. Being a vegetarian in India would not help to reduce its ruminant methane emissions. But then, India is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.

and

All plants, including grass, require carbon dioxide to grow. Grass is eaten by ruminants and the carbon in it is used for the growth of the animal and for milk and wool production. A small part of the carbon from the grass is used to make methane through enteric fermentation. This methane is emitted by the animals into the atmosphere. It stays in the atmosphere for only about 10 years, after which it changes back to carbon dioxide, which in turn is being absorbed by the grass, which in turn is eaten by the animals, etc. It is basically a closed loop.

More of Dr Van der Lingen's paper can be found on the NZ Climate Scietists Coalition Web site.

Kevin 747 does a back-turn

2009-04-12T10:33:00.004+10:00

Kevin 747 was on his way to Thailand to try and convince the Asean nations to set up an Asia-Pacific EU style common market. That's all we need. With our fragile environment, to open up our borders to all of Asia could swamp the place. To open our economy to the lowest of Asian wages could bankrupt the country (that is if he hasn't done it already!)

Meanwhile John Roskam has written an article that should be read by all Australian who have given our jet-setting PM his very high popularity.

Rudd can now mix it with the best of them. He's just resided over a government that's got 20 per cent bigger. According to the Treasury's own calculations, spending by the federal government will have gone from just over 23 per cent of gross domestic product in 2007-08 to about 28 per cent in this financial year. Saying this growth is of Whitlamesque proportions is not hyperbole. It's a statement that's literally true. Indeed, depending on how you measure it, government is now growing faster than it did in 1972-75 (under arguably our worst PM - E Gough Whitlam)

Perhaps our PM could stay in Austrlia for the greater proportion of the next year and, like his plane, do an about-turn on his empire-building..

Alarmists@Copenhagen vs Sceptics@ New York

2009-04-11T16:41:00.005+10:00

From the Energy Tribune:

A good report contrasting the two conferences held last month.

Some Contrasts:

Copenhagen
•The climate alarmist conference in Copenhagen was attended by over 2,000 activists, mostly non-scientists.
• The conference duly warned of even higher sea levels and even higher global temperatures all presaging even greater catastrophes.
• The Copenhagen meeting was not about science, it was about politics and prophecy.

New York
•...some 700 climate “skeptics” many of them scientists...
• This was a wholly different kind of affair. It focused on the science of climate change, the latest scientific data, and climate trends.

The most distressing part of the article said:
As such, in dealing with the gritty reality of climate science, it got almost zero mass media coverage.

What happened to investigative journalism? With the current crop of reporters we would not have heard about Nixon and Deep throat nor Clinton and Levinsky.

The Confused Rachel Cohen

2009-04-09T16:50:00.007+10:00

Rachel Cohen starts her blog entry "Dear Climate Change Deniers...." and then mentions climate change skeptics like the Heartland Institute.

I'm sure that, if she had attended the ICCC organised by Heartland a month ago, she would have learned that the 700 Climate Scientists at the convention all agree that climate changes through the course of history. She would have been hard pushed to find a solitary climate change denier.

She goes on to say the "evidence for global warming is unequivocal" and cites an UN IPCC report. Is she aware that the Assesment reports issued by the IPCC are prepared but less than 50 scientists? Is she aware that more than 31,000 scientists at petitionproject.org have said that it is all bunkum? Is she aware that the UN's IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body?

The IPCC report mentioned that IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachuari said the science has “moved on”
and he was right. The ice core samples show that rise in CO2 follows warming with a lag of 800+/-200 years.

She mentions that the world had experienced over 1 degree of warming in the last century, and can expect even more in the years to come.

She forgot to mention that the warmest decade, according to NASA's GISS, was the 1930's and that the warmest year in that century was 1934. Also, she exaggerated the warming - the official figure was only 0.6ºC

She goes on to say As people of faith, we have a moral obligation to protect the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change and are already seeing its effects. Seems hard to deny...

Well, what about denying the third world the things that advanced her US, our Australia and the major G20 nations; things like Petrol and Oil and Coal Fired Power.

Or do we let these third world people tear down forests for fuel, have rotting food because of no refrigeration, etc etc. These are the most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change.

Thomas L Friedman lost the Ball

2009-04-09T16:29:00.003+10:00

In the New York Times op-ed piece by TL Friedman (which I know is only an opinion piece) he seems to have lost the plot. He correctly mentions the failures of cap-and-trade - but poo-poos it anyway. He then goes on to say:

STRATEGY Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?

His next main point:

MESSAGE Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have.

Well, I would strongly dispute that! In fact he is wrong there. The climate of the healthy planet Earth has been changing since the beginning of time. The continuously changing climate has not harmed the healthy planet Earth in the past and I'm sure it won't in the future.

Does he mean the scurrillous use by globalwarming alarmist of the term "climate change" when they realised that the Earth had stopped warming? They did this because the Earth had stopped warming!

Global Warming in Australia - 1900 AD

2009-04-09T16:08:00.003+10:00

In a report in the LA Times by Julie Cart dated 9 April 2009 noted that the drought in the Murray Darling Basin was due to AGW or climate change. (See link in title.)
When did this man-made Global Warming start, Julie?

On Jennifer Marohasy's blog she quoted a report re the year 1900 AD. (Chronicles of Australia, Ed John Ross, Legrand 1993.)

“THE oppressive heat was a major talking point of the vast and drought stricken country of Australia.

“While cyclonic winds have been lashing the coast off Townsville, the temperature today soared to 112 degrees Fahrenheit (44.4 C) in Adelaide and Broken Hill, and 104 (40C) in Melbourne.

“So dry is much of Australia that the riverboats on the Murray have come to a stand still. On a cattle station in central Queensland, it is reported that the kangaroos are too weak to hop and the kookaburras can no longer fly.

“In Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, the New Year sees these State’s battling to recover after recent bushfires. But if its not fires it would be floods, and if not floods it would be drought.

“In the north the odd cyclone adds a bit of interest by knocking down a few towns, or sinking the fishing fleet. Australians are used to having nature knock them off their feet every so often.

“The country has battled through the long droughts, and seen the downturn in the bush rush right to the doors of the city banks. But the crashes of the nineties are behind as the New Year [1900] comes near.”

Over to you, Julie, Was this the result of man-made climate change too?

Kevin Rudd/Belinda Neal: Who needs anger management?

2009-04-06T13:37:00.003+10:00

From the Herald-Sun dated 3/4/09:
Kevin Rudd loses temper over in-flight meal.

This is the PM who made Belinda Neal submit to anger management. Should he now take himself off to anger management classes?

Pachauri appointed to Yale

2009-04-02T11:48:00.004+11:00

Yale Daily News: Wednesday 1st April reported that Rajendra Pachauri appointed to the directorship of the newly formed Yale Climate and Energy Institute.

Dr Pachauri continues to spread untruths. When asked what he would say to climate change sceptics replied:

Well, look at the work of the IPCC. These are thousands of scientists who have functioned in a transparent, objective manner. Everything that is assessed by the IPCC, every draft at every stage is peer-reviewed. … It’s an extremely objective, knowledge-driven process.

There may have been thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC but the actual assessment reports for politicians and press numbered less than 50. As to peer-review, these 50 co-wrote papers and cross reviewed papers. It's an extremely subjective, outcome driven process.

Tell me, Dr Pachauri, how is it that after trillions of dollars of expenditure and more than 20 years spent trying to prove CO2 is to blame, your IPCC has not come up with one single item of proof?

Before you start another enquiry, I will give you the answer for free. There is none. CO2 is innocent.

मोरे होत एयर फ्रॉम मत्रियन Wilkinson

2009-03-28T11:01:00.003+11:00

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

2009-03-25T21:08:00.003+11:00

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

2009-03-23T11:42:00.004+11:00

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

2009-03-20T08:52:00.005+11:00

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

2009-03-19T16:49:00.003+11:00

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

2009-03-19T15:46:00.005+11:00

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

2009-03-18T20:24:00.003+11:00

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!?

2009-03-18T20:04:00.004+11:00

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.

2009-03-17T17:50:00.005+11:00

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