Are Monbiot and the Guardian Deniers?

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.

Catholics and Climate Change

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!

Educational Protest against Al Gore on 13th July

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.

An Open Letter to All Members of Parliament

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.

French "Spiderman" Comic Book Hero climbs Sydney Building

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!

Kyoto Box pulls wool over Pachauri's eyes

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.

Pachauri appointed to Yale

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.

Ad Hominen attacks and one back at them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Co2 is Innocent!" Investors' Business Daily

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

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

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

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

'Act on climate or kill future chances to defraud

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

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

So Prof Penny, what was your message?

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

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

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

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

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

Geo-Engineering Dreams in "The Australian"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Andes Glaciers Advancing; Global Warming is over

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

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

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


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

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

Carbon trading is not the answer, Co2 is not the culprit!

In a story in The Australian Newspaper dated on Saturday 21 Feb 09 with the sub-heading:
We need to hear other ideas on greenhouse gas reduction.
They give an explanation why the Rudd Government shut down the parliamentary inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme after calling it only a week earlier.

Kevin Rudd is demonstrating he will brook no dissent to an immensely complex plan he intends to make law by the middle of the year. Under the CPRS, the Government will set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auction or give to industry permits to pollute.

Pollute???

Then the article goes on to mention the word that is always near to the alarmist's surface: Consensus.

The Government has a plan, the Opposition supports reducing emissions, although it is a little hazy on how to do it, and public opinion wants something done about climate change. But that is where the consensus ends...

Well, on February 6th, ABC News Radio ran a poll: Is Global Warming to blame for the current heatwave in Australia?

- Global Warming is a myth
- Yes
-No

The result showed that more than 90% thought that (Anthropogenic) Global Warming was a myth
and because the result showed a consensus that didn't fit into the ABC's global warming theology the result was pulled fromtheir past records.

The article goes on to state:

A carbon trading scheme is also open to manipulation by the financial engineers whose derivative trading packages came close to crippling the world banking system last year.
and
The system also subsidises the producers who receive carbon credits, in effect giving the Government the power to pick winners, with all the risk of political manipulation this brings.

Penny - Look at this

Steven Goddard has posted a graph showing CO2 rises lags behind temperature rise on Anthony Watts award winning blog Watts up With That?

Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.

As I said in my just previous post -

The lack of evidence showing CO2 to cause warming means Penny Wong has no excuse to introduce her new HAT (Hot Air Tax)

Turnbull's 'Hamlet' stance on climate under fire

In a SMH article by Marion Wilkinson dated 20/2/09:

At a meeting of the Australian Business Economists forum in Sydney today, Senator Wong renewed her attack on the Opposition Leader, calling on him to support the Government's key climate change policy.

Well, surely, Senator Wrong should have to produce some science that shows CO2 causes Global Warming before introducing her HAT (HOT AIR TAX )- her ETS. As the IPCC has been trying, without success after 20 years, to show that CO2 causes warming, it will be hard for MS Wrong to prove it.

"The challenge will be for Mr Turnbull to stand up to the climate change sceptics in the coalition who do not want action taken on climate change", Senator Wong said.

Better yet, tell them to join the new Australian Party opposed to any form of Carbon Tax, the Carbon Sceptics Party. (See previous entry)


Asked about the chances of getting the policy through the Senate this year, Senator Wong said: "We will talk to all parties but ultimately, when this legislation gets to the senate, the opposition and all parties will have to decide whether they want Australia to start reducing its emissions from next year."

Let us hope and pray that the Senate has some sense and rejects her CRAP (Carbon Reduction Australia Policy) her ETS - her new HAT (See previous entry - Penny's new Hat.) Australia's already teetering after Kevin Rudd's Buy More Votes stimulation package.
To introduce an ETS would completely bankrupt the country.

A parched, Scorched Story in the Australian

From an article in today's (18/2/09) Australian by CLIVE MCALPINE AND JUSTIN RYAN

1. If the Australian Government's climate policy remains unchanged, the devastating bushfires which swept Victoria on Saturday, February 7, will become more frequent.

As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement?

2. Without urgent action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the landscapes of south-eastern Australia will become drier and hotter and more prone to catastrophic fires.

As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement? Co2 emissions promote plant growth! Won't plant growth promote more rain and therefore wetter rather than drier?

3. The Government's current policy response to climate change needs to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Why?

Native forests and woodlands moderate climate fluctuations by recycling moisture back into the atmosphere as well as cooling the land surface. The net effect is a cooler and more moist landscape.

Right! See response to #2 above.

Land and Water Australia recently funded joint research by the University of Queensland and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence to model the impact of historical land-cover change on Australia's climate. Their findings suggested it was too simplistic to attribute climate change solely to greenhouse gases.

Ah, some research quoted.

Like the IPCC Assessment Reports (as opposed to the backing details) all sorts of "could," "possibly," "might".....

and still no link to CO2 causing Global Warming

Jobs for the "Working Families"

In a column by Andrew Bolt re Peter Costello:

"Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last November boasted he had a $10.4 billion stimulus package that would “create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year”. The same month he produced another “$15.1 billion package to create 133,000 jobs”, and weeks later he gave us a $4.7 billion “nation-building program” to “help create up to 32,000 Australian jobs”.

So where are those 240,000 new jobs now? And if those billions were so well spent, why is Rudd now spending a colossal $42 billion more? Then count all his other big-dollar pledges piling up as our economy tanks—paid maternity leave, a new tax on emissions, a rise in pensions. . ."

So, the Co2 spewing Kevin747 is creating 240,000 jobs? And yet, in an AAP report:

"The government has been up front about the fact that Australians will be affected, growth will slow, unemployment will rise given the deteriorating global outlook," Rudd was quoted as saying in an AAP report.

Honto Kana? He is creating 240,000 jobs yet umemployment will rise?

Expect Climate Exaggerations

From a report on www.azstarnet.com: the on-line service of the Arizona Daily Star, some extracts:-

The debate on why the world is warming has ended, according to the presenting scientists.

Quite right, since it's stopped warming, the debate is over.

"Be prepared for surprises," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the University of Arizona's Institute for Environment and Society, one of three speakers at the symposium.

Was this the person who said to David Deming (Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, College of Earth and Energy,
University of Oklahoma) that the alarmists had to get rid of the MWP prior to Mann et al producing the disgraced "hockey stick" graph?

Stephen Jackson, director of the University of Wyoming's department of botany, said"The good news is that climate change is nothing new. It's part of the world we live in, but the bad news is that a time of climate change is not a good time to be around."

Well, Mr Jackson, as climate is always changing, is there ever a good time to be around?

HometownAnnapolis Wrong about AGW

In an article entitled "Eric Hartley: A first step toward a cleaner Maryland" datedMonday, February 9, 2009, some strange statements were made.

"There are skeptics, of course - people who argue the science on climate change is still unclear. "
"We know for a fact that our greenhouse gas emissions - man-made - are increasing," (Secretary of the Environment Shari) Wilson said. "The science today tells us that there's a correlation between (them and climate change). So we have to act."

Well, sorry, but the sceptics know that the science is clear. The IPCC has had 20 years to find a causal link between Global Warming and Greenhouse gases including CO2 without success. Whereas the Vostok Ice Core samples show that rise in CO2 follows rise in temperature. F-O-L-L-O-W-S... get it?

"Think of this logic. If, say, Al Gore is wrong, ...."

Well, substantially wrong, with 41 inconvenient untruths in his inCONvenient movie. British courts ruled that in order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

"(Wilson) notes there already have been sea-level rises in Maryland."

She should know that Florida today agrees with her about sea-level rises


Doom-and-gloom maps show Cape Canaveral would go under.
But at the current rate of sea-level rise in Florida -- 2.3 millimeters a year -- the ocean would take more than 400 years to rise by the 4 feet needed to make that happen, some oceanographers say.