Green Jobs con revealed!

According to a report by a Spanish university, for every 4 jobs created in the Renewable Energy Sector, 9 are lost.
Spain is headed for a 20% unempoyment rate! That's what we face here if Rudd/Wong and Co. get their way.

Read more...

Do you have a beef with the ETS? You will!

If your house is wired up for power then every electrical appliance will be attached to a power generator which in all likelihood will pay a tax and that tax will be passed on to you, the consumer.
The price of toasting bread has just gone up, the price of ironing the school uniform has just gone up, the price of vacuuming the living room has just gone up and the price of watching the Sunday afternoon game on TV has just gone up.
If you’re associated with the consumption of food, that’s either grown with the use of carbon intensive processes, or if you like to eat beef, mutton or lamb, which involves the emission of methane and is apparently a super form of carbon, then under Mr Rudd’s proposal, you’ll potentially have to pay for the privilege.
Put simply, a single beast, which ends up on our supermarket shelves as steak, roast, mince or sausages, emits about 70 kilograms of methene and according to the Kyoto protocol this has to be multiplied by 21 which means that each beast is responsible for emitting around a tonne and a half of carbon.
Utilising NAB modelling on the price of a carbon permit, a tonne and half of carbon, multiplied by about $50, is equivalent to an additional cost to the farmer of approximately $75 dollars per beast per year.
$75 dollars per beast per year = no beef industry in Australia!
If the consumer wants to eat beef and can afford to pay for it then you will be buying it from a country that doesn’t have an ETS.
The price of beef in Australia will be above the price paid in other countries that don’t have a beef industry which will result in you paying better than $100 dollars for a prime cut roast.
Quite obviously the quality of the Australian standard of living, as reflected in our diet, will be reduced.
When it comes to lamb and mutton, sheep emit around 10 kilograms of methane, so using the same formula; this means around 210 kilograms of carbon per year, per sheep which equates to Australian sheep farmers being slugged about $10 per sheep annually and this will ultimately drive sheep meat out of the market.
So, if you decided to have a lamb roast for dinner this Sunday, which the gentleman in the car giving me a lift today said he was planning to do, then expect to pay almost $100 dollars at the butcher for it.

Read more...

The Costs to Australia of Renewable Enegy

Here is a submission to the Australian Senate that highlights the foolishness of the Federal Government's push to have 20% of electricity produced by Renewable Energy sources.
The costs will be enormous.
The key points are:

• The requirement would markedly raise electricity prices;
• impose a direct cost of $1,800,000,000 annually;
• increase consumer costs and decrease the competitivness of our industry;
• cause far more job losses than would be created by renewable energy.

read more...

Pouring cold water on global warming

Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead.

There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades.
Evidence for this comes from the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit and the Hadley Climate Research Unit while evidence that CO2 levels are continuing to increase comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
Professor Don Easterbrook one of the principle speakers at the recent World Conference on climate change held in New York in March this year attended by 800 leading climatologists, has documented a consistent cycle of warm and cool periods each with a 27 year cycle.
Indeed the warm period from 1976 to 1998 exactly fits the pattern of climate changes for the past several centuries long before there were any CO2 emissions. Greenland Ice core temperature measurements for the past 500 years show this 27 year cycle of alternating warm and cool periods. Recently the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased again from 1976 to 1998 and has been decreasing ever since.

Read more...

Stupid Science!

The fear-mongers are really stating to clutch at straws now.
According to an article at News.com boffins at the Imperial College London believe little lambs in Scotland are shrinking because of Global Warming.
Apparently it has also changed the colour of their wool!
{I think daylight saving might have faded the carpet and stopped the hens laying too!}

Oh, and by the way. Climate Change is ruining our nuts!
Scientists... lead by the Nutty Professor perhaps... at the University of California-Davis and University of Washington believe that because nut trees need a certain amount of winter cooling to be productive and winters could be warmer because of Global Warming, our nut crops will be in decline.
Sounds nuts to me!

Ah guys... its actually not warming and hasn't since 1998.

Sound Familiar?

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth.
The drop in food output could begin quite soon, pehaps only 10 years from now.

When do you think this was written? And what is this drastic forecast all about?

...the gloom and doom continues here.

(See date in bottom right corner of this Newsweek story.)

Rudd’s dangerous obsession (by David Flint)

Why do so many of our leaders ignore the obvious? Is it not a fact that the climate has always changed? If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct, it cannot explain the massive climate changes which have occurred since the creation of the world. It can only explain a tiny sliver of that time.

But let us first assume that the theory correctly explains global warming, and secondly that the world is indeed warming. Let us then make a third assumption, that an international agreement significantly reducing emissions is achievable.

The Prime Minister and Senator Wong may think that will seal the deal. It will not. We must also assume that all major emitters will actually observe it. The fact is the number of countries which regard their international promises as binding is quite small.

If all nations become law abiding there is still a fifth and crucial premise before we can be secure against climate change.

This is that all of the other factors which have caused climate change over millions of years will thereafter be in a state of suspense.

Of course that fifth assumption just cannot be made. Even if we closed down every coal fired power station and stopped using oil.

Read more...

First Response from Victorian ALP Senator

I recently sent three points to Australian Government Senators.

The Emmissions Trading Scheme will impose large costs for purely symbolic benefit at a time when many ordinary Australians are hurting.

1. It will not change global temperatures;
2. It will force Australian industries and jobs overseas and;
3. It will make Australians poorer; while it's richer not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.

A Victorian ALP Senator at least had the decency to respond albeit in a form, party-line response.

This is my response to Senator Gavin Marshall, ALP Victoria

Senator Marshall,

To say I am disappointed in your form, party line, reply would be an understatement.

World wide discussion and opinion around Global Warming/Climate Change/Carbon Pollution (or what ever it’s called this week) and the rush to ‘do something’ is based more on ideology than on proper observable scientific study and conclusion.

To act now based on the assumptions of a few scientists using computer modelling, working within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to ‘prove’ global warming, is the height of irresponsibility. The overwhelming body of empirical evidence, not computer modelling (or an agenda), shows no correlation between man-made emissions of CO2 and climate change. This is incontrovertible Senator.

Any warming seen to the present time is completely within natural variations of temperature change in the last 10,000 years. In fact just 1000 years ago it was much warmer than it is now.

Here are 4 points of empirical evidence that prove without doubt that to do anything drastic now is completely unnecessary.

• Firstly, the greenhouse signature, the telltale “warmspot” warming pattern predicted by the IPCC does not exist. Despite weather balloons scanning the skies for the last few years there isn’t even a hint of its existence.
• Secondly, newer, more detailed analysis of data from ice core samples shows that instead of carbon forcing up temperature, for at least the last 500,000 years, temperatures have increased before a rise in CO2 levels. This lag is around 800 years. The opposite conclusion was used in modelling by the IPCC making the outcomes contradictory to the evidence.
• Thirdly, Temperatures are simply not rising! Empirical evidence from satellites processing data twice daily shows there has been no warming since 1998. In fact there is some evidence of a sharp fall in temperature. How many years of NO GLOBAL WARMING will it take to get this point across?
• Lastly, Carbon Dioxide is doing almost all the warming it can. Adding twice as much CO2 doesn’t make twice the difference. The first molecules of CO2 to enter the atmosphere matter, but as more is added there is less and less effect.

Senator, like you I am certain Climate Change is happening too! It always has and always will. The questions are:

• Is It Man Made?
• Is it within natural variations?
• Do we need to do anything?
• And is anything we do going to make any difference anyway?

Senator you say Kevin Rudd trusts the 2500 scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Do you?

• Of the 2500 scientists only 600 dealt with climate science.
• Of those 600 only 308 reviewed the second revision.
• Of the 308, only 5 commented on all 5 chapters.
• Of the crucial chapter “understanding and attributing climate change” only seven of the 62 reviewers could be deemed impartial.
• Two of those reviewers did not agree with the final statement.
• So just 5 scientists agreed with the statement of the IPCC attributing Global warming to CO2. That’s well short of 2500 Senator Marshall.

If you want more evidence, nearly 32,000 scientists co-signed a petition at www.petitionproject.org stating:

“there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes climate change".

Also, 35 scientists from 14 countries contributed to a report released in June, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

You can find it here.http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html

I suggest you read this important work before you make any further decisions or send out misinformed replies.

We need honest, competent politicians who make decisions based on fact, not Green ideology. The senate will be held accountable by the electorate for its decision on this issue Senator.

The NIPCC Report on AGW

Here is a link to The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009.

The NIPCC is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.

It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying:

“there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

More Articles Skeptical of AGW

The Heartland Institute has a number of very good articles on AGW. The Heartland Institute is a U.S. national nonprofit research and education organisation, founded in Chicago in 1984. It claims it is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.
Its aims are to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It covers a wide area of research including parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
It has a great page here titled Global Warming Facts.
Enjoy!

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

Here is a CBC Documentary on GW called Global Warming Doomsday Called Off. While slightly dated it is a fantastic example of why panic over CO2 is completely unjustified and has absolutely become political ideology not scientific discovery.
It takes about 45mins but is a must watch.

The sun and the oceans do not lie (by Christopher Booker)

Even a compromised agreement to reduce emissions could devastate the economy - and all for a theory shot full of holes.
The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes.
Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent.
Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry.
All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train.
What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago.
Read more….

MIT Climate Scientist on man-made climate fears:

'Ordinary people see thorough this -- but educated people are very vulnerable'

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen mocked man-made global warming fears in a July 2, 2009 radio interview on WRKO's Howie Carr program. (Full audio of Lindzen's interview available here.)

Lindzen noted that man-made climate fears were "divorced from nature" and he said the scientific foundation for climate fears is "falling apart."

"How did we get a population that can be told something that contradicts their senses and go crazy over it?" Lindzen asked on the program. Lindzen recently co-signed an open letter to Congress with a team of scientists warning: "You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming' -- 'Earth has been cooling for ten years.'

Thanks to Climate Realists

Join the Protest

Educational protest against Al Gore on 13th July - Melbourne

For more info please click here

Very Good Presentations Showing Climate Data

Below are two very good presentations by Bob Carter who is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

5 Tests of Climate Change (Part 1), (part 2)

Climate Change - Is CO2 the Cause? (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3), (Part 4)

World, AUS and NZ Scientists against AGW alarmism.

A common argument of the pro-warmists is that there is concenus on AGW.
"Not true" I say, "there are many scientists from around the world and Australia and New Zealand who have serious doubts about the IPPC's assertions."
"Just name them then," I am challenged.
O.K. then:

See here: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. ;
here: Australian Climate Science Coalition, ;
here: The Carbon Sense Coalition ;
and here: the Lavoisier Group

Some great opinion:
here: Bob Carter,
here: Louis Hissink,
here: Warwick Hughes,
here: David Stockwell and:
here: Jennifer Marohasy, all highly qualified scientists, conduct personal websites and blogs critical of AGW alarmism.

Go here for a list of others siting sceptisism of AGW.

Go here to see 197 international experts in climate science who signed the Manhattan Declaration against AGW alarmism. Their names and credentials are a matter of public record.

Here is 100 scientists, many of whom come from Australia and New Zealand, who signed a letter to the Secretary General of the UN on the occasion of the UN Bali Climate Conference, December 2007, expressing their opposition to AGW alarmism. Their names and credentials are now a matter of public record.

650 International scientists who have spoken out against AGW are identified and named in a 2008 US Senate Minority Report with this introduction.

Here is a link to another 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition to "demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Thanks to The Climate Sceptics (see link right)

No Answer is the Answer

Andrew Bolt has a great article here to Senator Steve Fielding getting no definative answers from Penny Wong's advisors.

Changing Facts on AGW

Evidence of how facts have changed since 2003, to the point where any evidence is thin on the ground.

The only 4 points that matter

The greenhouse "signature" is non existant.

Despite weather balloons scanning the skies for years for the telltale “hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave there’s not even a hint of it occuring.

There was strong evidence in ice core samples, but the latest more detailed data turned that theory inside out.

Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, it is now understood that temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw out the theory of cause-and-effect .

Temperatures haven't risen.

Emperical evidence from satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. While temperatures have been flat or falling, CO2 has risen. The computer models don’t show this!

CO2 is already doing almost all the warming it can.

Having twice as much CO2 being added to the atmosphere doesn’t make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules are important, but extra ones have less and less effect. Carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.

The Skeptic's Handbook

Here is a link to The Skeptic's Handbook, a fantastic reference for those wanting some solid information behind your right to be a skeptic.
This will be updated regularly to fit with any new findings. Please feel free to print and distribute to friends neighbours and particularly your children.
Above is my view of the most important facts in the current version that gives 4 clear points to your argument. Thanks to Jo Nova for her work.

Welcome to AGW Revealed

The current hysteria surrounding ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ (or whatever label fits the argument of the pro-warmist agenda this week) is truly heading into dangerous territory.

Frighteningly, the fact that we are all being duped by AGW (Anthropogenic* Global Warming) proponents is largely being ignored by the popular media and has become a plaything for agenda driven, stupid and/or lazy politicians.

The costs of allowing discussion around climate to be so biased will be huge.

Many thousands of highly credentialed scientists now question the theory that man made emissions of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) are the cause of the slight shift towards warming we saw up to around the beginning of the century. Of course the fact we haven’t warmed for almost a decade is never mentioned by pro AGW lobbyists.

Despite what AGW followers might say, we are no longer arguing science. It has become a religion. We are told to believe without question. Armageddon is coming and we must repent oh sinner! Not since Heavens Gate have we seen such a dangerous sect.

And those who dare to question climate zealots are subjected to abuse and name calling. “Denialist”, “Sceptics”, “paid by oil companies”, you’ll hear them say.

I am proudly a 'Sceptic' and if we all don't start asking some serious questions about the theory that carbon dioxide has doomed the planet we will end up paying dearly.

The fact remains that AGW IS A THEORY, with outcomes derived in the mind of a computer through questionable data inputs.

This is the same computer modelling that can’t predict our weather next week with any accuracy by the way, let alone 70 years time.

There are literally thousands of scientists world wide that have serious concerns about the 'science' behind the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assertions of climate change and they are rarely heard.

Recently the USA passed an emissions trading program called "cap-and-trade" that has very serious implications for the ailing American economy. 85% of the energy produced in the US has CO2 as a by-product. Mark my words! Jobs will go.

Australia is next if Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and the Greens get their way.

Come back periodically and I will get as many details for the real story behind climate change as I can find.

Thanks for dropping by.

(*Anthropogenic or man made)