ThadeusSez

The Final Insult - Scumbag Solicitor and client

2012-02-23T02:47:00.003-08:00

Well, I finally recieved a copy of the OFFICIAL!!! documents from Jim Dwyer Solicitor of Warrnambool [ via Mary X of course] stating all the Estate expenses for Jamie Harold Wallace.

Lets check out the bullshit EXACTLY as quoted.

Phone calls – Various Authoities / creditors ..................$1,850:00

J.Wallace has stated that these amounts are only estimates

Uhh!, where's the breakdown. That's a s**t load of calls; This is crap and is NOT allowable anyway as it's quoted as an 'estimate'..

Funeral Costs ....................................................................$5,800

This is a blatent lie . Mary X has a copy of the original reciept and that thieving crook James Henry Wallace has added an extra $520

Headstone ............................................................................$663

Sorry – not an admin expense under the probate act

Bank ..... [ assume it referes to lost income ] .......................$300

Sorry – not allowed; there is no detail as to what bank, what for, when encured and the thieving list goes on.

Consultation 12 times ...........................................................$5,040

The purpose of a solicitor is to do the work for you; perhaps it took 12 visits to work out how to screw more money out of the estate ? Or perhaps there were never any such visits; I prefer the latter.

James Henry Wallace Lost Income .......................................$4,800

Thst's a good trick since he's a retired pensioner and in any event, where are log book accounts ?, The tax man and social services will be sending you a letter very shortly, my son. As for Jim Dwter, I have a feeling that mister tax man will be auditing your books as well - actually, they'll go through you like mercury thru a duck especially when both departments get a FULL account of your dealings with mister James Henry Wallace [ original papers will be supplied ]. Too late for remissions, you will now reap what you sow and it couldn't happen to a nicer pair of scum bags.

Julie Wallace [ Partner ] Lost Income ....................................$1,280

You gotta be kidding, this is out and out perpetrated FRAUD!!!. Julie Wallace has no interest in the estate so the claim should NEVER have been allowed [ God Almighty, Jim Dwyer, why don't you just put a sign around your neck proclaiming your participation in criminal acts ? have you gone as senile as James Wallace appears too ?. Did you forget you medication ?.

Death Notice ..................................................................................$2,450

Holy S*it!!! Did he put a notice in every paper in Australia? Copies of reciept of death notice show this quoted cost is totally false, fabricated moneys. Another nail in Jim Dwyer's professional coffin. Never mind taking medicine; maybe the drug squad should pay you a home visit.

Hey Mr Dwyer – "The death notice is optional and NOT!! required by law" Of course both you and James Wallace knew this, you thieving pieces of shit.

Air Flights and Accomodation in DARWIN!!! [ excuse me?]........$5,208

NO reciepts tendered for flights, hotel, meals. Investigation Checks of both Hotel and Airline show NO ONE of Wallace has ever been there or taken a flight at anytime before, during, after the events described.

Bond Refund [?] ....................................................................................$568

For what, from whom ?, WTF does 'Bond refund" mean ?. Reciepts, explainations,? This is total made up Bullshit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total assumed claim for Expenses came to ........................$22,680 This claim is manifestly absurd and anyone who believes all this crap is insane. What does that tell you about Mr James Henry Wallace AND his laughingly called 'Solicitor' Jim Dwyer ?

It tells me that these two are a pair of total thieves, crooks, fraudsters, con-men and anyother name you can think of to swindle a crippled pensioner [ Mary-X] out of at LEAST $ 11,000.

Various other steps have been initiated by a plethora of agents to correct this gross injustice, of which I am only one. Retrebution is coming to you pair; it may not be swift, but you can be damn sure it will be certain.

Wheelers Hill Plumber - Wallace J H

2012-02-20T06:45:00.004-08:00

Rotten,thieving,scumbag of the first order

Just read what this senile piece of shit did to his former wife regarding his son's death.
The story multiple listed here-in is only a fraction of what this detriment to society has done
Contrived to lie, cheat and steal thousands of dollars from the estate of his son and
deny his former wife due inheritance...all with the help of the solicitor named here-in.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Plumber Wheelers Hill - Wallace J H

2012-02-20T06:45:00.003-08:00

J H Wallace Wheelers Hill

2012-02-20T06:44:00.002-08:00

Wallace James H Wheelers Hill

2012-02-20T06:43:00.001-08:00

James H Wallace of Wheelers hill

2012-02-20T06:42:00.001-08:00

James Henry Wallace Wheelers hill

2012-02-20T06:41:00.001-08:00

James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill

2012-02-20T06:36:00.001-08:00

Warrnambool - Australian Lawyer and Law Firm Directory

2012-02-18T06:26:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Warrnambool Solicitors - Reviewed by the Community, Map ...

2012-02-18T06:25:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Barristers, Lawyers &/or Solicitors in WARRNAMBOOL, 3280 (VIC ...

2012-02-18T06:24:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Find Local Lawyers & Legal Firms in Warrnambool, VIC - TrueLocal

2012-02-18T06:23:00.005-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Lawyers - Warrnambool Port Fairy

2012-02-18T06:23:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

solicitors in Warrnambool, VIC Australia | whereis.com

2012-02-18T06:21:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Reviews for Solicitors in Warrnambool, VIC 3280 on WOMO.com.au

2012-02-18T06:21:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Yellow Pages® | solicitors in warrnambool vic, Australia

2012-02-18T06:20:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Most Popular Solicitors - General Warrnambool, VIC: Western ...

2012-02-18T06:19:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Find A Solicitor - Need Legal Advice? | YellowPages.com.au

2012-02-18T06:17:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG, DONT GET CAUGHT
RE: DWYER AND ROBINSON SOLICITORS

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Warrnambool Barristers & Solicitors Guide - Warrnambool ...

2012-02-18T06:15:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS BLOG FIRST, DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!
Read the entry here re: Dwyer and Robinson Solicitors.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Find A Solicitor - Need Legal Advice? | YellowPages.com.au

2012-02-18T06:13:00.001-08:00

STOP!!!! READ THIS FIRST, DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!
Read this entry re: Dwyer Robinson Warrnambool

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Warrnambool Find A Lawyer | YellowPages.com.au

2012-02-18T06:10:00.001-08:00

STOP!!!! READ THIS FIRST. DONT GET CAUGHT!!

See the post in this blog re: Dwyer Robinson Solicitors

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

AAAAA Solicitors - Warrnambool

2012-02-18T05:11:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! READ THIS FIRST BEFORE ENGAGING WARNAMBOOL SOLICITORS

Read the accounts multiple listed under Dwyer Robinson here-in

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - About Our People

2012-02-17T03:07:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Mr Jamie Wallace dies at Yulara, Northern Territory. Mary X and Mr James Henry Wallace [mother & father] were advised that day by police. Mary X contacted J.H. Wallace and was told Jamie died in Darwin [False info]. J.H. Wallace said he would have to borrow $7,000 to fly to Darwin to attend Jamie's burial. [he lived and died in Alice Springs and J.H. Wallace lives in Wheelers Hill so why transport the body to Darwin? Looks like someone saw the opportunity for a nice little holiday maybe? ]. Mary X asked to be notified of funeral arrangements – never happened. Later, Solicitor Jim Dwyer of Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd of Warnambool contacted Mary X saying there was $130,000 in estate moneys and J.H. Wallace had appointed himself, executor of the estate. There were 2 beneficiaries, J.M. Wallace and A 'Mary X'. On enquiry 'no identification is necessary' [ good business ay! Since there are 3 Mary X's in the area]. A cheque would be forth coming. Later [ much later] cheque arrives with statement of disbursements which appear manifestly absurd under the administration probate act 1956 and the supreme court rules 2004 and sketchy to say the least.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

Cost of funeral [ which was quoted by the solicitors and totally wrong by investigation] - and accommodation for him AND his partner in Darwin [ Extensive investigation and official photographs show NOBODY, that’s correct, NOBODY attended the funeral AND nobody stayed at the hotel he claimed, under his name ]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why did J.H. Wallace hire a solicitor in Warnambool when he lives in Wheelers Hill [ Is it because he need a solicitor who was bent enough to allow him to get away with out and out fraud ? You decide]

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

And the last bit is unconscionable – the head stone on the grave names J.H. Wallace's PARTNER! As the mother!.Not the legal mother and Mary X is expected to pay half the cost of a headstone which effectively disenfranchises her as the mother of the deceased-her son;

Constant communications with solicitor Jim Dwyer [even suggestions of legal redress] have failed to produce ANY detailed disbursement details for proof of legal expenditure under the executors act. How can the solicitor record these without statements?, why refuse such statements to the legal mother?,.I suggest that no statements exist ;certainly all investigation points to it. So YOU draw your own final conclusion to all this.

MY CONCLUSION: There is NO WAY, I personally would even consider using Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd for any legal business. It appears from all the evidence that they may have been, inept, incompetent, or maybe downright bent to ignore all legal obligations in satisfying the probate matter; again, you decide.

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

I suggest he has deliberately contrived to perpetrate a straight criminal fraud of despicable proportions on a crippled pensioner [ his former wife] on the death of their son. ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITH THIS CHARACTER AT YOUR PERIL!

Disclaimer: There are two things that must be satisfied to make you immune from slander or defamation. 1. It must be true and 2. The information is in the public interest. This blog satisfies those requirements. Any contradiction by a third or interested party, will have to prove that this account is untrue by producing bona fide paperwork discrediting the perceived facts.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - Warrnambool | W

2012-02-17T03:06:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors Warrnambool - Dwyer Robinson - Solicitors Warrnambool .

2012-02-17T03:06:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors - Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd in Warrnambool

2012-02-17T03:05:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors General VIC SOUTH WEST | DWYER ROBINSON PTY ...

2012-02-17T03:04:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson - 95 Kepler Street Warrnambool 3280 VIC ...

2012-02-17T03:04:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - Solicitors - Warrnambool, VIC - Yellow ...

2012-02-17T03:03:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - Lawyer

2012-02-17T03:03:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Contact Us: Solicitors Warrnambool - Dwyer Robinson - Solicitors ...

2012-02-17T03:02:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors Warrnambool - Dwyer Robinson - Solicitors Warrnambool ..

2012-02-17T03:01:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Our Location - Map: Solicitors Warrnambool - Dwyer Robinson ...

2012-02-17T03:01:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - Who are we

2012-02-17T03:00:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd - Warrnambool | We practice family law ...

2012-02-17T02:59:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Wallace James Henry Wheelers Hill

2012-02-16T22:31:00.001-08:00

Here's a little tid bit of TRUTH! concerning the Part time plumber above

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill

2012-02-16T22:29:00.001-08:00

cope this TRUE saga of late.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Warrnambool Solicitors Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd

2012-02-16T07:24:00.002-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd Warrnambool

2012-02-16T07:23:00.004-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd Warrnambool Solicitors

2012-02-16T07:23:00.003-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Solicitors Warrnambool Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd

2012-02-16T07:20:00.001-08:00

STOP!!! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd Solicitors Warrnambool

2012-02-16T07:01:00.001-08:00

STOP! Read this before considering this firm.

Here's the scenario.

Costs claimed: 12 Visits to Warnambool to discuss what ?

Costs of lost wages by J. H. Wallace @ $50/hour [ Jim Wallace is a pensioner and does odd jobs now and again – the tax department and centerlink might want a little chat with him]

costs for correspondence [???] phone calls

Cost of Jet star flights to Darwin [ Jet star has NO record of it ]

To add insult to injury, all these costs were incurred BEFORE he made himself executor and are not claimable anyway [ didn't his solicitor KNOW that?- I put it to you, he DID!].

Why would J.M. Dwyer want to see him personally 12 times ? [ Sugestion – lets see how much we can extract out of the disbursements... yes ? No ? You decide] .

As for Mister James Henry Wallace of Wheelers hill – well, if he conducts himself THIS way when a loved one dies, keep him the hell away from my plumbing.

See ALSO the last post to this saga, title "The final insult"

QLD finest scumbags taking money ILLEGALLY!

2011-12-14T05:31:00.000-08:00

Copy this picture and blow it up [2mb approx] sent to TV program and various sites.
This is the sort of crap that must be eliminated from QLD. but read the lead blog
and you'll see that it's as endemic as ever. If this isn't revenue gathering, I'll run naked down Ann st City. Sent request to QLD transport to have the $200 fine and demerit points squashed; also sent unlabeled photo so they get the picture [ pardon the pun] lets just see if these brain dead morons will squash the infringment or just be smart arses and take it all the way to court.
Any bets ?. I cant see a magistrate who isn't bent, taking anything but a dim view of police methodologies in this instance.... then again, after my lead post, I wouldn't like a punt each way.

To see the really BIG!! photos as she is shot. Go to

http://www.fileserve.com/file/jTrrx5Q/kippa-ring-cops.zip

there you can down load them FREE! exactly the large resolution to blow all 4 pics up without loss of quality.

the question NOBODY will answer ?

2011-12-09T22:54:00.000-08:00

sent to a variety of politicians, radio hosts etc etc

I have been trying for someone to answer a question that I have posted on many forums which
1. disappear after posting in 2 hours
2. never get posted
3. dump me out of the post ... I mean posts in every forum even though I can post everything else [ no kidding]

The question is this [ if I don't get an answer it means there are forces in Australia that reach to the bowles of every politician]

" you put a cigarette in your mouth; you essentially ingest it [ via your lungs but also your gut ] WHY IS THERE NO CONTENTS INFORMATION ON A PACKET OF CIGARETTES ???"

My answer is simple... if the public knew what cigarette processors ADDED to the tobacco [ 40 chemical compounds ] they would probably mount class action
on every tobacco processing factory on the planet going back at least 50 years, thus sending them broke. Nicotine is not addictive - got that -nicotine is NOT addictive.
What IS addictive is the shit companies are ALLOWED to put in it with every bull shit excuse under the sun. I switched to chop-chop reciently. My cravings disappeared,
my smoking was cut by 90%, I saved a fortune in costs. I was smoking TOBACCO!, not a chimical cocktail. So the question remains. What politician is going to risk
causing the biggest coo in human history by investigating what companies are allowed to put into tailor made cigarettes in order to keep smokers addicted to them
and thus continue the gargantuan tax revenue FROM them. I would not only be waiting with baited breath as to YOUR answer but whether this e-mail is buried inside
the pandora box, never to be mentioned by anyone. Lets see if I'm right or wrong.

So far, not a peep, not a squeek, not so much as a 'by your leave ' from anyone who is anyone.
But the question still aint gunna disappear, dear friends, until YOU ALL get an answere.
Now the real question is WHO will try and bury this information and try ever so desperatlty with all the resources available to see that this question remains a non event ?.

Here is the answere I got from one well known forum..

"

Your general discussion thread entitled "The question NOBODY will answere ..
lets see if this question is covertly zapped" has been rejected by the moderator.

The reason it doesn't get posted has nothing to do with a conspiracy and
everything to do with the fact that it is poorly written and gets its facts
wrong. Why don't you get someone to help you with it and you'll probably get
a different response."

Notice a few things. Firstly it tells me why It didn't get posted. It's poorly written ?
That's an excuse ?; considering the fact that some people have posted in computereez with
unknown abreviations, MISPELLING! and grammar that is more attrocious than anything I
could write. Sorry fellows, this is itself utter bullshit. It gets it's facts wrong ?
So they are essentially saying that cigarette companies DO NOT put all these additives in.
Excuse me ????. I wouldn't be asking the question if my premise based on it was not correct.
Hey! wankers. I don't know who you have been talking to but I've had a fucking tour of
Phillip Morris in the USA from someone who works there. This is the VERY conspiracy I am
trying to expose, so I suggest YOU get YOUR facts straight or do I have to name the stuff they use
to process tobacco. Finally, the answere to getting it published is "get someone else to help you
with it" and do fucking what??? I can tell you plenty about what is wrong with a subject
WITHOUT actually telling you how to fix it, there by garenteeing it will NEVER be published
because I didn't actually tell you HOW to get it published. So it don,t matter squat
who helps me without knowing the parameters TO get it published.

And you think I'm paranoid just because I ask a question and KNOW the parameters surounding
the question to start with ?

OK, so here is alittle number taken off the net.. look for it, you will find it at

What's In Cigarette Smoke?

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

Nicotine is highly addictive [ WRONG!!!!!.. this statement can apply to only a few people as everyone is addicted to something. I'm addicted to chocolate and fruit juice - what does that mean ??. Food scientists will tell you this general statement is UTTER BULLSHIT !]. Smoke containing nicotine is inhaled into the lungs, and the nicotine reaches your brain in just six seconds.

Nicotine in small doses acts as a stimulant to the brain. In large doses, it's a depressant, inhibiting the flow of signals between nerve cells. In even larger doses, it's a lethal poison, affecting the heart, blood vessels, and hormones. Nicotine in the bloodstream acts to make the smoker feel calm.[ If you take too many aspirins, that will kill you too instead of protecting you like it does in correct dosage]

As a cigarette is smoked, the amount of tar inhaled into the lungs increases, and the last puff contains more than twice as much tar as the first puff. Carbon monoxide makes it harder for red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body. Tar is a mixture of substances that together form a sticky mass in the lungs.

Electronic cigarettes are the best new option for smokers.
Click here to see what we found out.

Most of the chemicals inhaled in cigarette smoke stay in the lungs. The more you inhale, the better it feels—and the greater the damage to your lungs.

Cigarette Maker Now Lists Ingredients

For the first time, an American tobacco company has begun listing long-secret ingredients contained in its cigarettes directly on the label. Yesterday, Liggett Group Inc. introduced cartons that the company plans to begin using that list the ingredients in its L&M cigarettes, including molasses, phenylacetic acid and the oil of the East Indian mint called patchouli. The move comes as the state of Massachusetts is trying to compel disclosure of all ingredients by all cigarette makers, an effort that other major tobacco companies are fighting.

Liggett, which broke with the industry by signing the first settlements ever with states and private attorneys suing it, supports the Massachusetts effort as well. "Liggett believes that its adult consumers have a right to full disclosure," Liggett head Bennett S. LeBow said in a statement. Along with blended tobacco and water, the 26-item L&M list includes high fructose corn syrup, sugar, natural and artificial licorice flavor, menthol, artificial milk chocolate and natural chocolate flavor, valerian root extract, molasses and vanilla extracts, and cedarwood oil. Less familiar additives include glycerol, propylene glycol, isovaleric acid, hexanoic acid and 3-methylpentanoic acid.

Some 600 ingredients are used in American cigarettes, but a Liggett spokesman said the L&M statement was a "quite exhaustive list" of every ingredient used in that brand.

Ingredients in tobacco products have never been proved harmful -- especially when compared with the many toxins found in tobacco smoke itself. But activists have long pushed for disclosure of the ingredients, in part because consumers tend to be more wary of risks imposed upon them by others than of the risks they knowingly choose.

The companies have provided lists of ingredients to the federal Department of Health and Human Services for more than a decade, but government officials are legally not allowed to release the information. The industry also presented a composite list of 599 additives to congressional investigators in 1994, but that was never officially made public.

David Remes, an attorney who represents the four other tobacco companies challenging the state of Massachusetts, said the case comes down to the industry's right to protect its trade secrets.

So there it is. I guess I was wrong; it aint 40 additives, broken down it's 6,000 compounds and some the processors REFUSE to divulge under the patent act, just like coca-cola with it's secrete ingrediants. WOW!! have the smoking public been had big time.

rate my solicitor Australia

2011-10-24T23:44:00.000-07:00

Isn't it strange that there is no site on the net for the above title ? Well after googling all over the place I decided to let the net do the walking so; instead of going through the motions of starting such a site [ promted by a story no less ] I titled an entry in this blog so that when ANYONE else googles - my blog will appear in the list. In fact, my site will be the ONLY listing. Now you may ask with batted [ or battered ] breath .."why so". Well I have had an earfull from a friend who had dealing with apparently, a totally bent solicitor in Victoria; although his story may be the tip of the iceberg [ and they usually are ], I decided to look into it, gathered all documents for a squiz, listened to phone conversations [ recorded by this chappy ], and made a decision that this sort of CRAP! has to be exposed. Mind you, the respective solicitor may take umbrage but this friend [ whom I will call Bill ] has everything necessary to take the matter to the Victorian Supreme Court for a hearing and determination. Provided the person hearing this case is not also bent, Bill should have more than enough evidence to show Absolute fraud by the solicitor in qustion at the direction of his client [ another person ] in a matter involving Bill.

well I got all the paperwork and had a good examination. I posted the matter HERE under Dwyer Robinson [ multiple entries]. The matter may be dropped due to lack of money but retribution surely follows and the disclaimer at the end covers my arse in case, worth a good read - short but to the point.

More on carbon tax bullshit - complete

2011-07-24T07:51:00.000-07:00

According to this story the "Climate Institute" say the tax could be as small as $2.45 per week. If so, why all the resistance to this measly sum, If only it were true. A carbon tax on fuel alone will amount to between 5 and 8 cents per litre and we all know when you put a tax on fuel then you also raise the price of everything we use, eat, wear, watch, drive, sit on and live in, nothing will be spared and this is before we are bent over by the power companies. Compensation promises will not be sufficient and they will not last and the price per ton will not stay at the introductory level. This PM has shown she is not concerned about lying to the Australian people and we should remember this when details are finally revealed. Until the worlds major emitters commit to engage in this issue we are doing nothing more than engaging in national self flagellation with no hope of changing anything and they know it. Also what happens to the other 50% of the tax that Juliar says she is giving back in compensation, there never seems to be anything said about that Are they serious, do they honestly expect people to believe that Juliar can save the planet by taxing us all only $2.45 per week ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background information
The following pages of background information demonstrate how the above results were determined. For full references, caveats, and a thorough discussion, see –
Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., 2009, Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective? Lecture to the Prague School of Economics, May, 12 pp: obtainable from vc@nd.edu.au.
Definitions
Radiative flux is a continuous flow of radiant energy at some surface, denominated in Watts per square metre (W m–2).
Radiative forcing is a change in the net radiative flux at the tropopause, the top of the climatically-active region of the atmosphere.
The mitigation cost-effectiveness of any policy intended to mitigate global warming by reducing CO2 concentration in the air is the cost of forestalling 1 C° of CO2-induced global warming, on the assumption that all measures to mitigate that warming up to a target year are as cost-effective (or cost-ineffective) as that policy.
On the same assumption, the global abatement cost of a policy is the cost (expressed as a percentage of global GDP taken as increasing yearly at 3% real, and discounted at some inter-temporal discount rate) of forestalling all warming from CO2 and other manmade climate influences up to the target year (in this case, 2020).
Base data (with sources)
3.4 C°: cent.est. of 21st-century manmade warming: (IPCC, 2007, p.13, table SPM.3).
8 W m–2: cent.est. of 21st-century radiative forcing (IPCC, 2007, p. 803, fig. 10.26).
5.35: CO2 radiative-forcing coefficient: (Myhre et al., 1998; IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
280 ppmv: Estd. CO2 concentration in the air in 1750 (IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
390 ppmv: Measured CO2 concentration in 2010 (NOAA; ESRL).
22 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentration growth, 2011-2020 (IPCC. 2007, A2 scenario).
836 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentration in 2100 (IPCC, 2007, A2 scenario).
5%: Proposed cut in Australian emissions by 2020. (Gillard announcement, 2011).
1.2%: Australian CO2 emissions as % world emissions (from Boden et al., 2010ab).
$10.1 bn/yr: carbon trading cost (23/26 x $11.5 bn given in Garnaut, 2011).
$0.9 bn/yr: renewable energy support ($9.2 bn over 10 years: Gillard, 2011).
$1.6 bn/yr: administration costs (Wong, 2010).
$0.3 bn/yr: costs of coal & steel support averaged over 10 years (Gillard, 2011).
$60 trillion: Global annual GDP (World Bank, 2011).
51%: CO2 forcing as a proportion of all 21st-century manmade forcings (IPCC, 2007).
0.1%: Pure rate-of-time-preference inter-generational discount rate (Stern, 2006).
1.35% & 2.65%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (Garnaut, 2008).
2.75% & 3.22%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (HM Treasury).
3.5%: Standard pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (HM Tsy Green Book).
5.0%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (President Dr. Vaclav Klaus).

The true cost of putting a “price” on carbon dioxide
Using the base data and HM Treasury’s 3.5% discount rate, we determine –
First, the CO2 concentration in 2020 if Garnaut’s proposal is fully implemented:
412 ppmv minus 25% of 1.2% of 22 ppmv = 411.987 ppmv.
Secondly, the radiative forcing the policy forestalls over the 10-year period:
5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/411.987) = 0.00017 W m–2.
Thirdly, how much warming Professor Garnaut’s proposal will forestall by 2020:
3.4 / 8 x 0.00017 = 0.00007 C°, or about 1/14,000 C°.
Fourthly, the cost of the carbon-trading policy in year 1:
($10.1bn + $1.6 bn + $0.9 bn + 0.3 bn) = $13 bn.
Fifthly, the total cost of carbon-trading policy from 2011-2020:
$13 bn increased by 3%/year & discounted at 3.5%/yr: total $127 bn/10yr.
Sixthly, the amount of CO2-driven warming over 10 years if we do nothing:
3.4 / 8 x 5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/390) = 0.125 C°.
Seventhly, the mitigation cost-effectiveness of Australia’s carbon trading policy:
$127 bn / 5% of 1.2% of 0.125 C° = $1.7 quadrillion/C° forestalled.
Eighthly, total global GDP from 2011-2020:
$60 trillion/year in 2010, hiked by 3%/year: total $708 trillion/10yr.
Ninthly, the global abatement cost of the policy:
(100 x $127 bn) / 5% of 1.2% of 51% of $708 trillion = 58.4% of GDP.
Tenthly, the global abatement cost of the policy per capita of world population:
58.4% of $708 trillion divided by 7 bn world population = $59,000/head.
Table 1 summarizes the effect of various inter-temporal discount rates. The action/inaction ratio compares the action cost with the upper-bound inaction cost.
TABLE 1
Stern
Garnaut #1
Garnaut #2
Treasury
Klaus
ROTP discount rate
0.1%
1.35%
2.65%
3.5%
5.0%
Policy cost
$153 bn
$142 bn
$132 bn
$127 bn
$117 bn
Mitigation cost-effect.
$2.1 qd/C
$2.0 qd/C
$1.8 qd/C
$1.7 qd/C
$1.6 qd/C
Abatement cost/head
$71,500
$66,500
$62,000
$59,000
$55,000
Global abatemt. cost
$499 tr
$465 tr
$433 tr
$414 tr
$383 tr
Abatemt. as % GDP
70.4%
65.6%
61.1%
58.4%
54.0%
Global inaction cost
5-20%
2.2-8.6%
1.0-4.1%
0.7-2.7%
0.4-1.5%
Action / inaction
3.5x
7.6x
15x
22x
36x
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
\
If the Australian Government’s proposal to oblige 500 big “polluters” to engage in what the City of London calls “trading hot air” were to achieve its stated aim of cutting 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions by 2020, and assuming HM Treasury’s 3.5% pure-rate-of-time-preference commercial discount rate for inter-temporal investment appraisals –
By 2020, CO2 in the air would be 411.987 parts per million by volume, compared with 412 ppmv if no action were taken.
Global warming forestalled by 2020 would be 0.00007 C°: i.e. 1/14,000 C°.
0.00007 C° is 1/700 of the threshold below which modern instruments and methods cannot detect a global temperature change at all.
At this rate, total cost of the carbon tax/trade policy will be not less than $127 billion between now and 2020, not counting gasoline and power price hikes.
If all the world’s measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions were as cost-ineffective as the Australian Government’s proposed policy, forestalling just 1 C° of global warming would cost the world $1.7 quadrillion.
Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet.
That cost is equivalent to almost 60% of global GDP to 2020.
That is 22 times the maximum estimate of the welfare loss from doing nothing about the climate, which is just 2.7% of global 21st-century GDP.
It is 83 times the minimum welfare-loss estimate of just 0.7% of GDP.
Garnaut’s 1.35% and 2.65% inter-temporal discount rates are very low by usual economic standards, artificially making the cost of action seem less costly compared with the cost of inaction than it really is. However –
Even at Garnaut’s artificially low discount rates, the cost of the Gillard policy would be 7.6 to 15 times the cost of doing nothing about climate change.
At the 5% discount rate recommended by President Dr. Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic for climate-related appraisals, the cost of doing what Gillard proposes would be 36 times the maximum cost of doing nothing.
For most Australian households, the $10.10/week benefit from the Gillard scheme will exceed the $9.90/week cost, providing no disincentive to emit.
For 500 big “polluters” (CO2 is not a pollutant, but plant-food to green the planet), compensation plus higher prices provide no disincentive to emit.
Thus, all the above calculations overstate the scheme’s cost-effectiveness.
Bottom line: It is many times more costly to try to prevent global warming by Gillard’s methods than to adapt in a focused way to the predicted consequences of global warming.
Conclusion: Mitigation policies cheap enough to be affordable will be ineffective: policies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. It is unlikely that any policy to forestall global warming by regulating, reducing replacing, taxing or trading greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit foreseeable from global-warming mitigation. No such benefit is discernible.
High abatement costs, and the negligible returns in warming forestalled, imply that focused adaptation to the consequences of such future warming as may occur will prove more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation. The opportunity cost of diverting trillions of dollars to mitigation is heavy. Therefore, the question arises whether mitigation should be attempted at all.
Christopher Monckton, The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

COMMUSIST STATE DECLARED BY GILLARD
The Gillard government’s plan to use the ACCC to gag small businesses from informing consumers of price increases due to the carbon tax is a further attack on the struggling sector.
No Treasury modelling has been produced to back up Julia Gillard’s claim that any price rise of more than 1 per cent is a price gouge consumer rip off.
Instead of a proper and credible assessment of her carbon tax impact by sector, business type or specific product or service, Julia Gillard has issued a threat of a 1.1 million dollar fine for businesses that dare to contradict her political spin.
Small businesses will risk being fined if they are asked to explain prices rises to consumers.
The Government has failed to understand the clear and obvious complexity of calculating the carbon tax impact and has not bothered to properly assess the impact by sector, business or item. Just a further note; if I may. Gillards statement of fineing business for informing the public of what component of pricing is carbon tax; is a direct contravention of two federal laws. Firstly, the free trade act states that it is against federal law to hinder, restrict, curtail or otherwise impose an impediment to any business engaged in lawfull and legal trade. Punishable by fines and imprisonment. Secondly, it is in direct contravention to the constitution in that it effectivly tries to imppose a law that restricts freedom of information, also punishable by fines and imprisonment.... no intelligent accademic can be THAT stupid as not to point this out. Unless Gillard has found a way to change the constitution, I am supposed to believe that she is indeed a totally incompetant PM and her advisors are candidates for federal prison for suggesting such an option.
Julia Gillard’s use of the ACCC to prosecute small businesses who talk about the carbon tax is more about the Government protecting its own self serving political claims than protecting consumers from unjustified carbon tax related price increases.
So Much for the Carbon Tax Compensation
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 05:58 PM PDT
NSW commuters could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.
The federal government claimed the overall cost-of-living impact on prices from the tax would be only 0.7 per cent of CPI.
However the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone - due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries - could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent.
Commuters travelling longer distances to the city from places such as Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Gosford and Heathcote would be worst affected.
NSW Premier Mr O'Farrell said yesterday it was "crazy" that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: "This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax."
"The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars."
The Treasury document assumed that the full cost of the carbon tax would be borne by commuters rather than by taxpayers. This reminds me of 1960's thinking. The metropolitan Tramways board in Melbourne lost 2 million dollars and decided to raise the fares by 5%. Next year they lost 4 million dollars and they couldn't figure out why. a MORON OF THE FIRST DEGREE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM THE ANSWER. There was obviously more than 10% of the commuters who said " If the fare goes up one more time, I'm not using it". Some people are on the edge of decision to NOT use public transport; the straw that broke the camels back.
Canada learned this lession a long time ago and made their transport fares "fixed". The one fare for everyone travelling in the one direction in a 24 hour period. It worked. People gladley used the system. As a result, the company made money hand over fist; the electric bus drivers are the highest paid in the world. Some companies either don't learn or, like the government, are just totally incompetant.
Results of the Daily Telegraph poll thus far.
Would you stop using public transport if the carbon tax pushed fares up $150 a year?
Yes 79.09% (3562 votes)
No 20.91% (942 votes)
Mark Twain made famous the saying “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”.
Contrary to the line repeated constantly by Julia Gillard and Greg Combet, Australia doesn’t have the world’s highest per capita emissions of manmade CO2. Authoritative figures show that several countries, from large (USA) to small (Qatar, Kuwait), have higher per capita emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel than Australia.
But here’s the really interesting story: the IPCC’s own numbers suggest that Australia’s annual net absorption of CO2 over its land and territorial oceans by natural processes exceeds its annual manmade emissions by a factor of 2 – a better performance than any other nation or region. On a net basis, according to the IPCC’s own numbers, Australia doesn’t have any emissions of CO2 at all - either in absolute or per capita terms.
The IPCC notes that figures from its Fourth Assessment Report, Ch.7, Fig.7.3 (on which I rely for these calculations) carry large uncertainties. For argument’s sake, we’ll accept the IPCC line on global warming (although I don’t buy it) and we’ll use these data.
We begin by figuring1 annual net absorption of CO2 over land by natural processes, mainly vegetation and soil: net natural absorption on land is 3.2 billion tonnes/year C-equivalent (122.8 bn.t/yr of absorption minus 119.6 bn.t/ yr of emission). And for oceans, we find that net natural absorption at the sea’s surface is 1.6 bn.t/yr tonnes C-equivalent (92.2 bn.t/yr of absorption minus 90.6 bn.t/yr of emission).
Earth’s surface is 510.1 million square kilometres; the oceans cover 71%, or 362 mn.sq.km; and land covers 29%, or 148 mn.sq.km. The surface area of Australia is 7.7 mn.sq.km, so it covers 5.2% of Earth’s land area; and its maritime ‘exclusive economic zone’ is 8.2 mn.sq.km, which covers 2.3% of Earth’s oceans.
If the IPCC’s figures represent realistic averages over the Earth’s surface, we can apply them to the percentages we’ve derived. Accordingly, Australia’s land mass absorbs 5.2% of the 3.2 bn.t/yr of CO2 absorbed globally by land, or 0.166 bn.t/yr C-equivalent; and Australia’s oceans absorbs 2.3% of the 1.6 bn.t/yr of CO2 absorbed globally by oceans, or 0.036 bn.t/yr C-equivalent.
Adding these results, we find that Australia absorbs naturally 0.2 bn.t/yr C-equivalent – twice its man-made emissions from fossil fuel, which totalled 0.1 bn.t/yr C-equivalent in 2010, or 1.1% of global fossil fuel emissions (according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011). We know that Australia is largely semi-arid and is typically less vegetated than other regions; but even if you halve Australia’s rate of land absorption of CO2 from the IPCC global average, the total still exceeds its man-made emissions from fossil fuel.
Doing the same exercise for all other major nations or regions, we find that the truly serious offender in 2010 was China, at 2.3 bn.t/yr C-equivalent. China emitted over 10 times more CO2 from fossil fuel than it absorbed naturally – worse than any other major nation or region. In 2010, China’s emissions from fossil fuel were 10% greater than in 2009. It produced 23 times more CO2 from fossil fuel than Australia did! In the space of a single year, China’s fossil fuel emissions grew by an amount more than twice the amount of Australia’s emissions from fossil sources.
By Alex Stuart - posted Friday, 15 July 2011
We Are Just a Pimple on the Arse of an Ant
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 05:03 PM PDT
A single Indian state is to build a new fleet of coal-power stations that could make it one of the world's top 20 emitters of carbon emissions – on a par with countries such as Spain or Poland.
In an echo of the Chinese economy in the 1990s which depended on the exploitation of vast reserves of coal, India last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia, Indonesia and southern Africa, but applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.
The epicentre is Andhra Pradesh which, with a population is 84.7 million people, is now expanding its power production by 800%. Seven major and more than 30 smaller coal-powered power stations are planned, together intended to have a capacity of 56GW.
In comparison, the UK's installed electricity capacity is 75GW, but is expected to rise to 100GW in the next two decades. The largest plant, expected to be opened in two years, will be the $4bn Krishnapatnam power station, India's first "ultra-mega" class of coal-fired power station. With 4GW, capacity it will be one of the world's 25 biggest electricity sources, capable of powering 7m middle-class homes.
Australia’s installed electricity capacity is just 37 gigawatts (GW). We are just a pimple on the arse of an Ant.
Our government wants to phase out cheap plentiful reliable coal fired power stations here with high cost unreliable renewables such as wind turbines that are manufactured in the very factories in Asia and India that are powered with our exported coal.The mind boggles.
Climate cops blame ozone for illness
The climate kooks have launched another bizarre bid for attention — this time claiming that global warming will cause millions of illnesses and cost billions of dollars. [ You can bet it won't be natural when - not if - it happens; despite anything anyone does because the world is just full-up]
And it’s going to happen in less than a decade. [ This may be a hint as to what's really being planned, mass culling of world population ]
The Union of Concerned Scientists says its Earth-friendly crystal ball shows 2.8 million ozone-related respiratory illnesses in 2020 — including a combined 944,000 missed school days.
Better start working on those absence notes now.
The group also claims there will be 5,100 hospitalizations of infants and seniors due to climate-related breathing problems, and that the total cost of all these illnesses and missed school days will be $5.4 billion.
The organization says the warmer weather expected over the next 8+ years will cause ozone levels to grow faster than Al Gore’s ego, leading to an increase in conditions such as asthma.
And if this is what passes for science at the Union, I really am concerned — because here’s what you won’t find in their report: U.S. ozone levels are DOWN over the past two decades, according to the Environmental Protection Agency… but asthma diagnoses are UP like never before.
Clearly, something is causing asthma levels to shoot up — and just as clearly, it’s not ozone levels.
Don’t blame carbon emissions from your refrigerator, either — despite what you’ve heard, our CO2 levels are on the downswing as well.
There’s a much simpler explanation for rising asthma rates, and it’s got nothing to do with what our refrigerators are spitting out and everything to do with what we put inside them.
The more crap we eat, the fatter we get — and the fatter we get, the more cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses we’ll suffer.
So I’ll agree with them on one thing: This is a manmade crisis, all right — but the only environment you can blame is the one in the supermarket.
Children terrified by climate change lessons [ Parents should sue the education dept]
Kids "feel incredibly despondent and helpless"
Pensioners: Promised cash for carbon tax [ Because they will die before the real shit hits the fan]
PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.
On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health. [another reason for class action law suit]
Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.
Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters".
Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out".
Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people".

The IPCC continues to propagate global warming lies, only now it is called “climate change.” Any pubic figure that uses the term “climate change” is lying if for no other reason than the climate of the Earth has been and is always in a state of change.
As courts in the U.S. and England continue to require the global warming charlatans and their universities to make known their alleged “scientific research” and email exchanges to further the hoax, a larger question looms. Should not such activity be deemed a deliberate fraud and should not injured parties, including the whole populations of America and England have a standing in court to see that they are punished?
Unanswered is the role that the mass media played in spreading and defending the global warming hoax. On Memorial Day, when we celebrate the sacrifice of fallen heroes to preserve liberty, the Washington Post published a bizarre editorial criticizing “climate skeptics” for using the FOIA to find out why Mann and the University of Virginia received funding while participating in a massive deception. Unmentioned were comparable Greenpeace FOIA efforts against climate skeptics.
It’s worth noting that the global warming/climate change fraud is still being perpetrated in American schools from coast to coast.
Already, a number of Republican candidates for the presidency have refuted global warming or an earlier role in advocating it. For too long, politicians have not just been wrong, but often deliberately ignorant of the truth.
Justice may be slow, but it will be served and that is a lesson the entire scientific community should take note. As more revelations occur, even the mainstream media will be unable to protect the global warming/climate change perpetrators or to be their co-conspirators.
© Alan Caruba, 2011

The truth about the “Lord” claim
I care not about the UK peerage, but for the record, when people mockingly claim Christopher Monckton is not a Lord it shows just how desperate they are to attack the man and distract people from hearing his arguments.
The correct answer when people say: “He’s not a Lord” is one line.
The Letters Patent grants him a peerage, and his passport lists him as a Viscount. You really are scared of talking about scientific evidence aren’t you?
Attacks on his title are ad hominem remarks — designed to suggest he can’t be trusted to speak about anything else. The truth is a complex legal debate borne from that the centuries old messy ancient liaison between the British monarchy and UK Parliament. Do you want to talk historic legal technicalities or science?
There is no deception on the part of Christopher Monckton. He has never claimed he was a voting member of the House of Lords in the UK. He inherited the title the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from his father and grandfather before that. It is indeed inscribed on his passport as such, I can confirm.
For we uninformed Australians, the title Viscount is ranked above the more common Baron, but beneath that of Dukes, Marquess, and Earls. All of the above can use the term “Lord”.
Monckton explains the complex legal situation:
“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”
Do I think that this an unwelcome distraction and he should stop using the title? I used to. Now though I am convinced that were Monckton to appear completely untouchably reasonable, like say Anthony Watts or Dr David Evans, the media would ignore him too. It’s part of his clown disguise, and it reels the small minds in. It’s rather pathetic that the level of discourse is so damningly poor that this sort of theatrical flag has any place in the public debate about whether we should spend billions on trying to change the weather. It’s as if the kindy kids escaped into the Editorial Department of major mastheads.
Green Party Leader admits Global Warming is Really all about World Government
Number Six
Activist Post
The Australian Green Party has now assumed the balance of power in the Australian Senate, allowing them great potential power in policy making. The Greens, founded in 1992, are traced back to the 1970’s Club of Rome era United Tasmanian Group, the world’s first “green” party. Their moniker is self-explanatory, the basis of their charter being ecology and the environmental movement.
Green Party principles state that global warming, er, climate change is the greatest threat to humanity with only ten to fifteen years remaining to provide a solution. “Australia is ideally placed to lead the world in this challenge and the Greens are committed to Australia taking that lead.”[1] They also want to limit CO2 and eliminate coal use, despite the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. Furthermore, they want to establish a “low-carbon economy” and force nations to sign binding environmental treaties restructuring the whole of society, economy and politics. They state “climate change will result in the displacement of people, creating environmental refugees and intensifying the threat of regional and global conflict.”[2].
In actuality, climate change policy will result in great displacement, mass impoverishment and genocide. Much has been said by real scientists on these issues such as the Sky Dragon Slayers, Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts and thousands of others. The policy documents from the Club of Rome and the United Nations to Ecoscience detail their true agenda, in their own words. Historian and economist Webster Tarpley recently gave a lecture dissecting this documentation revealing their agenda of deindustrialization, mass involuntary sterilization, global depopulation and the establishment of what they call a “planetary regime” or what Senator Brown calls a “world parliament.”[3] India is already giving away cars in exchange for male and female sterilization.[4]
Senator Brown: World Government is Real, No Conspiracy Theory
Australian Green leader, Senator Bob Brown, recently unveiled his hope for a “world parliament.” [5] Corporate commentators and spineless journalists proclaim the idea of a world parliament is something now to be treated seriously, not laughed at.[6] Authors and researchers discussing long laid out plans for world parliament and critical of the movement, consistently having been right on the money, have been laughed at for so long and called derogatory terms. Now we are to stop laughing and take it serious, for the time of world government is nigh.
Senator Brown believes we are inevitably moving toward a world community or “global, uh, parliamentary…governance” while deriding conspiracy talk. One will notice how all politicians who make public mention of this agenda always stutter before they proclaim “global, uh, governance.” On a personal note, I was given similar treatment. In university, one of my professors (a psychologist) had summoned my classmate and me for coffee. Strange, but we realized he had been secretly evaluating our sanity due to the matters we were discussing in class. Upon complaining to the university head, we were given a final lecture by the latter. He derided conspiracy talk and such. However, he then went on to state that there was nothing wrong with or believing in a “world state”, that it would be here in five, ten or fifteen years. Hence, the tactic is to label any critic as crazy. The fact that there can be no debate as to the viability of world government de facto demonstrates its undemocratic nature. It does not matter that the majority do not want it, they will get it.

Ad
Though Senator Brown’s party voted against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he goes on to state that “if we can invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy, surely we can peacefully get behind moves to have a global governance.”[7] He adds a cherry on top by furthering that the Tobin Tax would end poverty. He is right, there is a pattern. The Iraq war was an outright lie, where the Bush Administration fabricated evidence and put into force war plans long drawn up. Afghanistan saw them go after a non-existing boogeyman, even on their own payroll, to fulfill Sir Halford Mackinder’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan to dominate the Heartland and cull the world’s heroin profits. In similar vein, global warming, I mean, climate change is based on fabricated intelligence and ulterior motives.
Walter Russell Mead writes in a recent essay, that a Global Green Carbon Treaty (GGCT) “is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. The green plan is a plan for a global constitution because the treaty will regulate economic production in every country on earth.”[8]
Australia could be providing model climate framework just as the European Union laid the foundational model for regional integration, with its “extensive experience at the regional level” that is being drawn upon to integrate Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia via “the Pan-African Parliament, the Mercosur Parliament and there is also the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that includes 56 states and stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”[9] Australia is attempting to spearhead the establishment of the carbon tax and other climate policy even as the EU Carbon Climate Exchange collapses, just as it did in Chicago.[10]
If anyone still doubts the genocidal nature of climate change policy, consider their idea to massacre one million camels.[11] What will happen to the millions of Central Asian herders whose animals are their lifeblood when the world parliament comes for their camels?
JULIA Gillard has upheld the renewable energy sector in economically-devastated Spain as an example of the potential transformation of Australia's energy mix under her carbon tax.
Opening a wind farm at Gunning near Canberra, the Prime Minister today shifted her carbon tax sales pitch to renewable energy profit opportunities for investors and farmers.
Spanish company Acciona developed the project, consisting of 31 turbines with a total power capacity of 46.5 megawatts.
Ms Gillard hailed Spain's commitment to renewable energy.
“Today (Acciona chief executive Jose Manuel) described to us how, in Spain, 35 per cent of its energy is coming from renewable sources,” Ms Gillard said.
“And, as he remarked, we are a nation perfectly positioned to seize this clean energy future - a nation with a lot of land, a nation with a lot of wind, a lot of solar with the power of the waves and with geothermal.”
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
Climate: 'Weathervane' Abbott targeted
PM's political future blowing in the wind The Daily Telegraph, 14 hours ago
Policy puts wind in renewable sails The Australian, 10 days ago
$13 billion for clean energy expansion The Daily Telegraph, 10 Jul 2011
$3.2b renewable energy fund launched Perth Now, 8 Jul 2011
Lack of incentives shorts solar Courier Mail, 29 Jun 2011
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
However, the Spanish solar industry is heavily subsidised through a feed-in tariff of about 64c a kilowatt hour - well above anything offered for solar systems in Australia.
As Spain struggles to overcome its deepest economic slump in 60 years, the Spanish government is trying to crack down on assistance for many renewable energy projects in a bid to lower electricity costs for businesses and household.
It is currently auditing more than 9000 solar energy systems to ensure they are eligible for the top subsidy rate, which was capped in September 2008.
Ms Gillard said today the government would help secure funding for clean energy projects through the establishment of a new fund to leverage private sector investment and an agency to promote research and development for new renewable innovations.
The initiatives will cost the public purse more than $13 billion.
The Prime Minister said new renewable technologies like wind turbines could open a “new income source” for a rural Australians.
“It's showing the way for Australian farmers,” she said.
COMMENTS BELOW
Margaret Garling of concord.sydney Posted at 2:00 PM July 20, 2011
Just shows how much she knows!!! More lies, this woman is a disgrace and has to go before she destroys this country forever!!!
Comment 1 of 53
Tony - Gold Coast of Gold Coast Posted at 2:02 PM July 20, 2011
So are we going to become a basket case economy like Spain, why not reduce the retirement age to 55 and like Greece and pay 90% of the last years earnings as a pension like many of the bankrupt states of America. Great plan!!!
Comment 2 of 53
David of maitland Posted at 2:05 PM July 20, 2011
Spain as an example! What a joke. The country is broke, pays too much for "renewable" power and has too much intermittent as a percentage for a stable electricity grid. Perhaps this is the Gillard-Brown vision for Australia. No thanks Julia.
Comment 3 of 53
Zeus of Wollongong Posted at 2:05 PM July 20, 2011
She does realise that Spain's economy is in tatters and is following a similar path to Greece.
Comment 4 of 53
Piano of Brisbane Posted at 2:11 PM July 20, 2011
Cattle one day, wind farming the next. Good on you PM, in touch as always.
Comment 5 of 53
Sickadacrap Posted at 2:12 PM July 20, 2011
How does the loss of more than 500 jobs by Acciona gel with "there will be no jobs lost" as Stated by both Gillard and Swan?
Comment 6 of 53
Piano of Brisbane Posted at 2:17 PM July 20, 2011
Sheep and wheat one day, wind farming the next - priceless.
wilma Posted at 2:19 PM July 20, 2011
I see people are speachless.
Comment 8 of 53
Fed up of Adelaide Posted at 2:26 PM July 20, 2011
More of our money going off shore
Comment 9 of 53
Frank Posted at 2:26 PM July 20, 2011
Yep we too can be as broke as Spain!
Comment 10 of 53
Honesty Posted at 2:32 PM July 20, 2011
The Labour back bench must shudder at yet another stupid statement from a PM with no idea what she is doing or saying. She will never recover Labours position because every time she opens her mouth she puts her foot in it.
Comment 11 of 53
Get off the grass. Posted at 2:39 PM July 20, 2011
Oh my god - Gillard using Spain as an example. What runs round in this women's head? Australia and Spain should never be used in the same sentence.
Comment 12 of 53
Penny Posted at 2:39 PM July 20, 2011
Yeah, Spain's economy is a great example. Thanks for pointing that out. Makes me feel so much better about following in their footsteps..
Comment 13 of 53
Rod W of Brisbane Posted at 2:40 PM July 20, 2011
Holding any European country up as an example for Australia to follow (economically speaking) is laughable - ley alone one of the PIIGS nations. Speak to the hand, PM!
Comment 14 of 53
Ripper of the bush Posted at 2:41 PM July 20, 2011
So we can follow Spain's example and lose 2.2 jobs for every green job created? At least some of Spain's solar panels work at night with all those diesel powered searchlights aimed at them.
Comment 15 of 53
Gerry Atrick of Qld. Posted at 2:42 PM July 20, 2011
Well, fancy that. Spain currently has an unemployment level of 21%, soaring crime figures attributed to lowered standards of living and mutterings of civil unrest to replicate Greece. Lets have the whole story, and then see if we want to adopt the same polcies that have resulted in this sorry state of affairs.
Comment 16 of 53
dpor9985 of Canberra Posted at 2:46 PM July 20, 2011
Oh Dear God! Let's model our economy on Spain or Greece or Ireland. Gillard is delusional (and desperate) if she thinks Spain is a great economy to follow.
Comment 17 of 53
Colin of Sutherland Shire of Sydney Posted at 2:47 PM July 20, 2011
Yea thanks Julia, are we headed towards the same financial situation? Good grief the stupidity of this government knows no bounds!
Comment 18 of 53
Terry M Posted at 3:02 PM July 20, 2011
Maybe there could be a Julia Gilard Tax in which unemployed coal miners could bury her neck deep in geothermal rocks and farmers could be paid to watch all the hot air come out of her mouth.
Comment 19 of 53
Not fit to lead of melbourne Posted at 3:03 PM July 20, 2011
Fantastic - use Spain as an example of where Australia could be, if only Australia would follow it. Where oh where are their collective brains???
Comment 20 of 53
Sheepish Posted at 3:04 PM July 20, 2011
Yeah, hail 20% unemployement!!! who is she kidding?
Comment 21 of 53
Ron of Adelaide Posted at 3:07 PM July 20, 2011
yeah good one Julia the way you are running the country we will end up like a basket case like spain
Comment 22 of 53
mikem of brisbane Posted at 3:07 PM July 20, 2011
One day its coal , the next day its renewable's. I guess it's whatever happens to be convienient at the time and bugger the facts.
Comment 23 of 53
Nick of Melbourne Posted at 3:08 PM July 20, 2011
Lets hope we don't end up like Spain, or do we simply ignore that part of the argument. What a great example hey Julia! Spain has a fantastic renewable energy sector but the country is totally stuffed! I can see the sense in that argument!!!
Comment 24 of 53
Richard Posted at 3:10 PM July 20, 2011
This prime Minister is out of control, will somebody please tap her on the shoulder and tell her to wake up.
Comment 25 of 53
Tim Maloney of Auckland Posted at 3:16 PM July 20, 2011
Are you kidding? Spain? Spain is an economic basket case with unemployment over 20%, and the PM wants to use Spain as a role model? God help Australia.
Comment 26 of 53
Worried Posted at 3:21 PM July 20, 2011
My God, she cant even pick a successful country. She picks a country with huge debt, high unemployment and which lost three jobs for every green job created. I suggest you leave it to Combet. He can lie better than you!
Comment 27 of 53
George of Gold Coast Posted at 3:34 PM July 20, 2011
Julia needs a tap on the shoulder to go! Fancy using Spain as a great example. What a joke Julia has become!!
Comment 28 of 53
Matt12 of Bris Posted at 3:35 PM July 20, 2011
Spain has lots of wind turbines and lots of out of work people, is there a link, where are all the highly touted green jobs.
Comment 29 of 53
Keith of Brisbane Posted at 3:36 PM July 20, 2011
Why does she always look at what other countries do, wake up Julia this is Aus, so do it the Aussie way, not some other way,or is it that we can't.
Comment 30 of 53
Bill Koutalianos of Sydney Posted at 3:38 PM July 20, 2011
The renewables reign in Spain, is sending their economy down the drain. As Spain struggles with its deepest economic slump, the electricity costs to business and households are on the up and up.
Comment 31 of 53
Drewe Bantick of Melbourne Posted at 3:39 PM July 20, 2011
Our Prime Minister is off with the fairies on her renewable fantasy that has the potential to ruin Australia economically. Australia should be prospering on the back of it's mining sector but here we have a 'leader' who appears to be doing everything in her power to bring our great country down.
Comment 32 of 53
Keith of Brisbane Posted at 3:41 PM July 20, 2011
She forgot to mention all the hot air coming out of Canberra,that in itself should power half of Brisbane.
Comment 33 of 53
Matt12 of Bris Posted at 3:46 PM July 20, 2011
1 in 5 unemployed but look, we got windmills, where's Don Quixote when you need him. Is this Gillards vision for Australia, sure looks like it.
Comment 34 of 53
Anne from Perth Posted at 3:49 PM July 20, 2011
If it wasn't all so sad and tragic, it would be funny. Each day brings new Gillard Glimmers of Garbage. Seriously if by some reason this government does last to the next election, what a shocking mess will be left to be cleaned up.
Comment 35 of 53
Tasiturn of Tasmania Posted at 3:49 PM July 20, 2011
To campaign on Spain, just shows she's off her brain.
Comment 36 of 53
country girl Posted at 3:52 PM July 20, 2011
Julia Gillard is going from bad to worse. Why compare us with other places when we used to be the lucky country before this phony government came to wreck us all as soon as they can.
Comment 37 of 53
Ann of NSW Posted at 3:55 PM July 20, 2011
I just can't stop laughing. Please how could anybody be stupid enough to use Spain as an example.
Comment 38 of 53
Average Joe of Sydney Posted at 3:59 PM July 20, 2011
Compared to what Julia will do to us , Spain will be a haven .
Comment 39 of 53
Alan of Sandringham of Sandringham Posted at 4:10 PM July 20, 2011
Renewable energy subsidies have bankrupted Spain ,at last her vision for Australia is clear.
Comment 40 of 53
The Inconvenient Truth Posted at 4:12 PM July 20, 2011
I think I too might be "economically viable" if Julia Gillard would only throw $13 billion of tax payers money my way.
Comment 41 of 53
joe doughlas of sydney Posted at 4:15 PM July 20, 2011
rightio, let's make australia unemployment to be same as spain at 20%. that'll do to lower the carbon footprint, just like spain
Comment 42 of 53
Portia Jenkins Posted at 4:15 PM July 20, 2011
Spain has no abundance of coal and gas like Australia where we have plenty of them plus uranium deposits. Why the PM not tell about the housing boom in Spain few years ago and the consequences of it?
Comment 43 of 53
Darcone Posted at 4:16 PM July 20, 2011
Perfect exsample of why no one is listening anymore. Labour/Greens are selling a product that dosn't deliver and cost a countries sovereign debt to install.
Comment 44 of 53
Mark of Mark Posted at 4:17 PM July 20, 2011
Gillard can't help it. She probably does not know where Spain is.
Comment 45 of 53
Keryn Posted at 4:19 PM July 20, 2011
Unfortunately, unlike the wind farm itself, JG is the one full of hot air...
Comment 46 of 53
Ian of Townsville of Australia Posted at 4:19 PM July 20, 2011
I thought the clean energy revolution was supposed to create jobs here in Australia for Australians. How come this project was developed and managed by a Spanish company?
Comment 47 of 53
Charles of Adelaide Posted at 4:24 PM July 20, 2011
I object with as much force as this medium allows, to the unfettered desecration of Australia's rural landscape by the growing number of wind turbines. This constitutes government sanctioned vandalism on an immense scale.
Comment 48 of 53
Mark Burnside of Melbourne Posted at 4:25 PM July 20, 2011
Everybody calm down...Spain's economic problems are regarded to be the result of a property bubble that burst in 2008, not renewable energy.
Comment 49 of 53
Great Joke! of Sydney Posted at 4:28 PM July 20, 2011
So now we have a comedienne for PM!
Comment 50 of 53
John of Qld Posted at 4:35 PM July 20, 2011
Unbelievable!! Is she really this stupid? Wants News Ltd investigated and now thinks we should model ourselves on Spain? For goodness sakes someone have a word with this pathetic excuse for a PM. Crean looks like a genius by comparison.
Comment 51 of 53
R U JOKING? of Melbourne Posted at 4:38 PM July 20, 2011
I assume the journo wasnt able to get a response from Tony Abbott as upon hearing the Spain example he just couldnt stop laughing. Seriously Spain! Prime Minister, that country is an example of what not to do. Whoever gave you that advice should be sent to run with bulls!!
Comment 52 of 53
Mike S. Posted at 4:43 PM July 20, 2011
why is she so intent on ruining the economy - i cant understand this - but its good she there I guess - because come election time she gonna get ( in the words of another failed leader) a huge shallaking.
Comment 53 of 53

A Blight on the Australian Landscape
Here is a further example of the nonsensical economic implications of installing wind turbines over conventional coal/gas-fired power stations.

Wales - UK
To build 800 two-megawatt turbines would cost at least £1.6 billion, plus, it is estimated, another £400 million for the pylons and sub-stations. With the output of Welsh turbines last year averaging less than 20 per cent of their capacity, thanks to the intermittency of the wind, the power produced by this £2 billion project will average out at little more than 300MW.
Yet contrast this with the 882MW produced by Centrica's new Langage gas-fired power station near Plymouth, costing just £400 million. This single plant, built for a fifth of the money, covering a few acres, will produce nearly three times as much electricity, without disfiguring one of the most beautiful landscapes in Britain. Those Welsh turbines, costing us all £120 million a year in subsidy, will produce power that could have been generated without subsidy at a 15th of the cost.
You see, rather than get the cost of renewables down, Julia Gillard’s Carbon Dioxide Tax is designed to make the price of cheap and plentiful Coal and Gas as high as Wind Power. But has anyone done an audit to find out just how much Carbon Dioxide is emitted in the construction of these visual monstrosities?
A 1.5 MW wind turbine of a type frequently seen in Australia has a tower 80 meters high. The rotor assembly (blades and hub) weighs 22,000 kg. The nacelle, which contains the generator component, weighs 52,000 kg. The concrete base for the tower is constructed using 26,000 kg of reinforcing steel and contains 190 cubic meters of concrete. Don’t forget the rare earth’s found inside the nacelle.
Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines. Forget Middle East oil, how’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply.

Besides, wind does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. As Robert Bryce shows in his book Power Hungry, even Denmark, which can switch off imported Norwegian hydro power when the wind spins its many turbines, has failed to save any significant net carbon emissions through wind. The intermittent nature of the wind means that fossil-fuel power stations have to be kept going, or inefficiently powered up and down. Besides, the total power produced from even the biggest wind farms is so small that, as a strategy for reducing carbon emissions significantly, wind power is a failure.
Yes, gas has carbon in it, but half as much as coal for each unit of energy. So a dash for gas to replace coal would dramatically and rapidly reduce carbon emissions. Given Ms Gillard’s nuclear allergy, it is probably by far the most effective and low-cost way to do so. Solar is expensive (and strangely inefficient at night); tidal destroys ecosystems; wave is an engineering nightmare; there is no room for more hydro; and biofuels use just as much fossil fuel in their production as they produce in “green” fuel.
Within a few years, thanks to Julia Gillard and Bob Brown, our once-beautiful countryside will have been ravaged by towering wind turbines which are risibly insufficient for our energy needs and which inflate our energy bills to levels only a mad person could consider right or just.

Unfortunately, it is just such mad people who are in charge of our environmental and energy policy. Sooner or later, something’s got to give.

Andy Semple
Speak without fear and Question with Boldness
Here we go again: more proof that this country is slipping into a Big Government, high taxing, big spending socialist nightmare [Ed: only slipping into?]
The Carbon tax is coming and it is probably the most unpopular policy any Australian Government has ever forced on it's people. Not even Whitlam was as bad as this mob and this PM, now that is saying something.
As dangerous as this Government is to the economy, there is one aligned organisation that wishes it had that much power. Yes, the Karl Marx wannabes over at GET UP are threatening hundreds of major employers around Australia with a business destroying boycott of their goods and services by their half a million faithful activist members, if these companies support or join an anti carbon tax campaign! Well golly gosh, I am shaking in my boots and I am sure that the CEO's and Managers of these great Aussie employers are just falling about in fear!
Seriously, who is GetUp! anyway. A fringe group of Socialists and Marxists and tree huggers that get far too much media exposure and are really known only for their support of everything anti WEST, along with their usual media stunts, like this one.
I will tell you this about GETUP, they are a bunch of toothless tigers who believe in free speech ONLY for those who agree with their leftist ideology and world view. Great, I am glad such group exists because that means that our democracy and liberty is working and that these extremists do not need to resort to terrorism just to make a point....... what a shame they don't feel the same way because clearly Mafia style tactics and blackmail is what they use to try and get their agenda sorted.
To want to destroy a business because it doesn't want a government policy imposed upon it that will force it out of business, competition and or sack employees, speaks clearly as to just what GETUP means and it means ANTI AUSTRALIA!!!
Zeg.
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. - John F. Kennedy
Lord Monckton probably meant to call Ross Gar-NUT! a "fascist", which Ross Garnuat well and truly desrves the title of (see http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_06_29_garnaut2.html). Furthermore, the hypocrisy of Getup! is badly exposed given that Nazi collaborator and drug pusher, George Soros, was behind the establishment of GetUp! and its sister organisation in the USA, MoveOn.org (see http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_06_01_Soros_Carbon_Cate.html)

C3

About C3 Charts/Images Videos Climate Blogs Quotes 'C3' Email/Twitter
RSS Archives/Categories Bad Sh^t Happens
x
xx xx x
......"C3, The Skeptic"...................."IPCC Skeptic"..................."Hide The Decline".........
*To watch a larger version of video, right-click on video; click on images for link."
January 06, 2009 at 04:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Vostok, Antarctica Current Temperatures Still Significantly Below Roman & Medieval Peaks
As the empirical evidence keeps mounting, the climate alarmist claim of a catastrophic Antarctica ice sheet melt event from "global" warming is entirely without merit.
One, as global warming alarmist scientists are finally admitting in the scientific literature, there has been no warming since 1998. Two, the average surface temperature at Vostok, Antarctica over the last two decades is a minus 55.1C degrees - that's 55 degrees below melting temperature. (click on image to enlarge)

The Vostok ice core temperature chart reveals the following essential points about this frozen region of the world:
The 2010 annual temperature was below both the long-term and short-term averages
The temperature average since 1990 is significantly below the peaks of the Medieval and Roman eras, and even below those prior to the Roman peak
For the 5,000+ year period, the linear trend (aqua line) indicates overall cooling
The green polynomial fitted curve to the data shows temperatures heading in a warming direction over the past 1,300 years, prior to modern era consumer/industrial CO2 emissions.
It should be noted that although the two polar regions both have a lot of ice, snow and cold, they are entirely different climates. These polar extremes experience warning and cooling periods at different times and at different rates/levels of change. As a result, the historical temperature regimes, commonly referred to as the 'Roman' and the 'Medieval', happened differently at the geographical opposites.
Additional historical temperature charts.
July 20, 2011 at 07:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Global Warming Gone Missing: 33% of World's Oceans Show No Warming Since 1981
The "world-ending" anthropogenic global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is supposed to be "global" except apparently it isn't; and often, it's not warming at all.
For example:
1. per the NOAA/NCDC data, the continental U.S. has actually been cooling over the last 15-years;
2. climate change alarmists are now finally admitting in the science literature that the world has not warmed since 1998;
3. the latest NASA satellite technology shows no ocean warming since 2002;
4. ocean heat content has basically been flat since 2003;
5. and finally, all measurements taken to identify the atmospheric "hot" spot required by the AGW hypothesis have not found it.
That's pretty damning evidence - not a single key climate measurement reveals the holy grail trifecta of "unprecedented," "unequivocal" and "accelerating," global warming. But wait....it gets even worse.
Adding to the alarmists' misery of a failed hypothesis is a critical area of the globe that is so important it's the basis of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) proxy - the area of the NINO3.4 SST anomalies. The chart on the left, the NINO3.4 anomalies since 1900 show no warming; the chart on the right, the NINO3.4 anomalies from 1981 through June 2011, show no warming.
Essentially, a major proxy for global ocean temperatures has a flat trend for the past century plus.

To expand on the area that the NINO3.4 covers, there is a large Pacific ocean expanse (33% of world's ocean surface) that engulfs the NINO3.4 and closely mimics its temperature changes. This ocean area is known as the East Pacific. It stretches from pole to pole and is depicted on the map below (left).
As the chart on the right reveals, since 1981 this vast ocean region has not warmed, despite the massive amounts of human CO2 greenhouse gases and the "consensus" AGW hypothesis.

Soooo, how can a global warming hypothesis that has conspicuously failed every global warming empirical measure and validation test still be considered a viable scientific hypothesis? How can such abject, empirical failure by a hypothesis still allow it to resonate with the liberal/left/progressive elites? Well, just like their love affair with eugenics, awful and idiotic science can find a permanent home in the belly of the left because of the dangerous power and control it artificially bestows to the ruling classes, relative to the average citizen.
July 18, 2011 at 06:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Scientists Determine Corals Are Highly Adaptive To Extreme Climate Changes, Global Warming Not A Problem
Read here. Without doing any empirical research, radical green groups (Greenpeace, etc.) claim that coral reefs will die off due to increased warming of ocean coastal waters. Actual scientists say that is wrong.
Bauman et al. published a peer-reviewed study regarding corals in the southern Persian Gulf area, which found corals to be hardy and resilient to extreme temperature fluctuations. Their research confirms what other coral studies have found:
"...three researchers report that the reproductive biology of the six coral species in the southern Persian Gulf "appears to be well adapted to extreme annual environmental fluctuations" and is "remarkably similar to conspecifics elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Baird et al., 2009a,b),"...say their work "confirms that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions," as has also been found to be the case by Coles and Fadlallah (1991) and Coles and Brown (2003). Hence, they state that "coral populations can survive and proliferate in extreme conditions that are projected to occur in many other regions of the world by the end of this century," buttressing their claim with the statement that "the recovery of these coral assemblages following mortality induced by a number of recent temperature-related bleaching events (1996, 1998 and 2002) suggests these assemblages are also resilient to extreme fluctuations in water temperature,"" [A. G. Bauman, A. H. Baird, G. H. Cavalcante 2011: Coral Reefs]
Additional coral-reef and peer-reviewed postings.
July 18, 2011 at 05:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
NOAA Reports That 96% of Deadliest U.S. Tornadoes Occurred Before 1960, Prior To The "Global Warming" Hysteria
Read here. Data source here.(click on image to enlarge)

Alarmists claim that severe weather incidents are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
Concerning U.S. tornadoes, that is an outright prevarication (a fancy word for a 'lie').
Additional severe-weather postings, list, and charts.
July 17, 2011 at 09:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Laurens Bouwer, IPCC Lead Author Admits There Has Been No Significant Impact From Climate Change
Read here (scroll down to bottom of linked article) and here. The money quote from the IPCC lead author:
“Lacking significant impact from anthropogenic warming so far, the best way to assess the potential influence of climate change on disaster losses may be to analyze future projections rather than historical data.”
In a nutshell, Laurens Bouwer, speaking for the IPCC, concurs that the climate change empirical evidence (ie, severe weather events, species extinction, etc.) of CO2-induced global warming is not convincing, nor material, nor relevant. Since there is no evidence of the IPCC C-AGW hypothesis and predictions being valid, he suggests instead using the failed predictions as basis for future prognostications about climate impact.
Simply amazing idiocy from the IPCC's scientific elite, eh? But wait......
So who is the lead author who dismisses facts and evidence to be replaced by the magical, dysfunctional IPCC prediction machine? Well...er...he's not a credentialed scientist nor a known climate expert. Instead, he appears to be another career apparatchik picked for his adherence to the non-scientific agenda - indeed, another IPCC controlled marionette.
"Laurens Bouwer is employed by VU University Amsterdam. According to that institution’s website, he too remains PhD-free. Yet a bio dated last month tells us he was a lead author for the the 2001 assessment report, as well as a contributor to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Extremes.”...the only way Bouwer could have served as a lead author for the 2001 report is if he had been nominated for that position some time in the late 1990s. But he didn’t even have a Master’s degree then...Let us repeat this: at the time Bouwer joined the ranks of the IPCC’s best and brightest he had yet to complete his Masters."
Examples of failed predictions of IPCC and warming alarmists. List of extreme weather events prior to IPCC's predicted modern era of "climate change" extremes.
July 16, 2011 at 05:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis Obama Makes Clear In Press Conference That Hockey-Stick's Michael Mann Will Remain As Key Economic Advisor
The spending hockey-stick was unveiled as new evidence that unprecedented global warming has caused accelerating spending, unequivocal debt and severe economic climate change (ie, high unemployment and slow growth).
Relying on the consensus precautionary principle, Mann has advised President Obama to spend much greater amounts in all areas to mitigate and adapt as quickly as possible to the economic hell that's in the pipeline from the massive CO2-induced global warming that took place over the last decade. (image source here)
/sarc
July 15, 2011 at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Expert Study Finds Rocky Mountains Unaffected By Climate Change Over Last 50+ Years
Read here. Big green lobbyists and government paid alarmists are at the forefront of terrifying the public about supposed CO2-induced climate change, especially in mountainous areas. A sentence from a government web site serves as an example:
"Climate change is widely acknowledged to be having a profound effect on the biosphere with many and diverse impacts on global resources. Mountain ecosystems in the western U.S. and the Northern Rockies in particular are highly sensitive to climate change."
Fortunately, there are actual scientists who still practice empirical research, and several decided to examine a major indicator of climate change in the northern Rocky Mountains. They conducted an analysis of stream flow for this area using data going back almost 60 years.
The Arrigoni et al. conclusion? The Rocky Mountains have not been affected by climate change due to greenhouse gases - not so sensitive after all, one could surmise. This conclusion runs totally counter to the prediction of "experts'."
"Climate alarmists claim that CO2-induced global warming will adversely impact the planet's freshwater resources by inducing large changes in global streamflow characteristics...studied discharge data they obtained from 34 stream gauges located in natural and anthropogenically-modified river basins of the Northern Rocky Mountains (USA) over the 59-year interval of 1950-2008, which period, in their words, "covers the majority of reported global climate change due to anthropogenic influences as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report..."changes in climate to date have not been great enough to significantly detect changes in the timing of flows in most natural sub-basins in the Northern Rocky Mountains beyond the natural variability," corroborating the findings of Moore et al. (2007). And as a result, they conclude that "direct anthropogenic modifications of river basins over the past 59 years have been more detrimental to overall river processes and ecosystem health than reported climate change effects in the Northern Rocky Mountains." [Alicia S. Arrigoni, Mark C. Greenwood, Johnnie N. Moore 2010: Water Resources Research]
Additional flood-drought and peer-reviewed postings.
July 14, 2011 at 03:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Asian Temperatures During Medieval Period Were Unprecedented New Research Determines
Read here. (click on image to enlarge)
L. Tan et al. authored a new peer-reviewed study that found higher temperatures existed between 1,000 and 1,200 years ago in the Asian region of north central China. The study also reconstructed precipitation levels for that area over the 1,800 years.
This study's temperature reconstruction shows higher temperatures in the past that can can clearly be labeled as unprecedented. Late 20th century temperatures were well under the Medieval era temperatures.
"A paper published examines the climate of central China over the past 1800 years using two different types of proxies. The paper finds higher temperatures and precipitation were present during the Medieval Warming Period (960-1100 AD) than at the end of the 20th century. This paper adds to the published work of 986 scientists who have documented that the Medieval Warming Period was as hot or hotter than the present and was a global phenomenon. This study also shows both the rate and magnitude of the rise in temperature from the year ~ 700- 880 AD were much greater than over a comparable period including the 20th century." [L.Tan, Y.Cai, Z.An, L.Yi, H.Zhang, Qin 2011: Climate of The Past]
Additional climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Other historical temperature charts.
July 14, 2011 at 05:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Expert Peer-Reviewed Study Validates NOAA's Analysis of 2010 Russian Heat Wave: No Climate Change Connection
Read here. After years of making hysterical claims about the phantom of global warming, most AGW alarmists (Gore and his "97% consensus") have moved onto claiming that severe weather events are a result of "climate change." The major sleazeball, green PR flaks have gone out of their way to promote this propaganda strategy after their global warming hysteria debacle failed so miserably.
Despite multiple weather/climate expert analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave, including NOAA's CSI team, that determined the heat wave was a natural phenomenon of weather, anti-science lefties/liberals/progressives/Democrats keep lying to the public about climate change being the cause.
Now comes a peer-reviewed study that refutes the climate change "truthers" lie once and for all.
Dole et al. found, like the NOAA the experts, that there is absolutely no evidence that climate change was the mysterious force behind the heat wave. They indeed validated the original conclusion of previous experts: it's the weather, get over it.
"The authors write that "the 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting all-time maximum temperature records."...nine U.S. researchers determined that "analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of the heat wave." In fact, they say that the model simulations provided "evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone." Similarly, on the observation front, they state that "July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave show no significant warming trend over the prior 130-year period from 1880-2009," noting, in fact, that "a linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of -0.1°C."..."Thus, they say their analysis "points to a primarily natural cause for the Russian heat wave," noting that the event "appears to be mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained an intense and long-lived blocking event," adding that there are no indications that "blocking would increase in response to increasing greenhouse gases." [Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, Judith Perlwitz, Jon Eischeid, Philip Pegion, Tao Zhang, Xiao‐Wei Quan, Taiyi Xu, Donald Murray 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Additonal severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings. Past extreme weather events. Severe weather charts.
July 13, 2011 at 12:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Sea Levels Higher During Medieval Warming Period - Research Shows Current Sea Level Rise Began By 1750 AD
Read here and here. There is an excellent and fascinating post over at Judith Curry's site regarding historical sea levels. It's part 1 of a series by Tony Brown. From one of his linked documents comes the chart on the left, and the chart on the right from a previous C3 post on sea levels. (click on images to enlarge)

Tony does an analyisis of sea levels prior to the pre-Medieval Period, pulling information from a wide assortment of historical resources. Per the documentation he reviewed, there is strong evidence that both the Roman/Byzantine and prior periods had sea levels that exceeded the current level.

"“The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants — folk known as Angles and Saxons — fleeing (although “conquering” might be the better word) into ill-prepared Roman territories. At the start of this rise, the areas we know as the Fens were a well-settled part of Roman Britain ruled from the town of Duroliponte (Cambridge) by its native people, the Christianized Romano-Celtic Iceni. Then the sea level rose, and history’s curtain went down for two centuries.”.....At the old shore the Etang of Vendres, near the mouth of the Aude, are the ruins of a Roman Therme of the 1st or 2nd century A.D. (locally called the temple of Venus). There the walls have been washed out by waves so that they now have a deep double notch about 1.80 m above present sea level..."
"So notwithstanding the statements of the IPCC AR4 who assert a sea level status quo from ancient until modern times, there are many studies that point to a picture of relatively static sea levels after the initial Holocene rise. These then show that some 3000 years ago there was a further inundation (think Lyonesse in Cornwall) and in early Roman times levels were somewhere around current levels. Levels then rose significantly through the Roman period peaking around the 700 AD Byzantine period at levels higher than today..."
At the end of part 1 on Curry's site, Tony makes reference to how Science Daily edited out key information from a study they reported on thus leaving their readers with an impression that previous sea levels were not higher. Interesting. Confirms why today's science journalists are no longer easily trusted.
Additional sea level postings. Sea level charts here.
July 12, 2011 at 07:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New Study Linking Global Cooling With Coal Sulfur Emissions Found To Be Clown Science: Without Merit & Silly
Read here, here, here, here and here. A clown-like PNAS peer-reviewed study by a group of green professors, none of whom are climate or atmospheric scientists (Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock) purports to explain how the IPCC's climate scientists and their climate models got it sooo wrong in regards to the well documented lack of global warming since 1998.
Their theory, widely reported by both an uncritical mainstream media and compliant, gullible bloggers & pundits, is that China's growing coal use emitted the needed sulfur emissions to stop global warming during the past 10 years. Unfortunately, it's a clownish theory based on, at best, flimsy, pretend climate science and minimal actual empirical evidence.
1. Unlike annual compiled CO2 emissions and CO2 monthly atmospheric levels, recent sulfur emissions and SO2 atmospheric aerosol levels are guesstimates. This study is based on guesstimates, which are based on tenuous assumptions, which are likely not a reflection empirical reality.
2. It is estimated by these authors that coal sulfates increased around 2004, well after the global non-warming phase had already started.
3. Unlike climate-impacting volcano sulfate aerosol ejections that travel multiple kilometers into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), sulfate emissions (aerosol particles) from coal remain in the lower atmosphere and are resident only for a short time as they are quickly washed out of the air by precipitation ("acid rain").
4. Coal sulfate emissions are not well mixed in the atmosphere, which means they are not well distributed around the globe meaning their global impact on temperatures is severely limited.
5. A previous NASA satellite measurement analysis published by atmospheric experts found no increase in global aerosol optical depth over the years 2000 through 2006.
6. Despite China's large increase in coal burning, aggregate global sulfate emissions have dramatically decreased because worldwide coal plants are burning coal with less sulfur and newer smokestack (flue) scrubber technology.
7. The empirically measured impact of coals' SO2 on temperatures is not settled, with science research suggesting that sulfur aerosols in the lower atmosphere are actually a cause of warming, not cooling.
8. Natural ocean and atmospheric oscillations are significantly better explanations of the non-global warming over the 1998-2008 period than the lame, meritless, speculative sulfur emissions hypothesis.
9. In another NASA study, it was found that aerosol particulates in the atmosphere have declined since the 1990's.

(click on any image to enlarge)
Estimated human SO2 emissions, generally declining with estimated slight increase around 2005-2005 (source for left, right):

Aggregate coal SO2 emissions adjusted for use of cleaner coal and use of improved scrubber tecnhology, declining overall, everywhere (source):

Aerosol (including SO2 particulates) optical depth comparisons from satellite measurements for years 2001, 2004, and 2008. Little change over several years of Kaufmann et al. study, and satellite data reveals aerosols to be of a local/regional concern, not a global issue (source):

Study's authors own graphical representation of their estimate of SO2 warming/cooling impact (purple curve) on global temperatures (blue curve). Even their own assessment would indicate little, if any, impact from human sulfur emissions during span of 1998 to 2008 (source).

The above graph has all curves removed except for global temperatures and sulfur forcing. Below, the SOI (index of the Southern Oscillation) curve (green) is added back to the study's original graph.

Focusing on the blue box representing the period analyzed by the study, one quickly sees that both the SOI and global temps are highly variable. Looking closer, there is a relationship evident between the SOI and temperatures - when the SOI heads in one direction, the global temps head in the opposite direction a few months later.
Apparently, the authors of this study chose to ignore Gaia's Southern Oscillation (and/or other major ocean/atmosphere oscillations) despite its obvious influence on cooling global temps from 1998 to 2008. Instead they focus on the purple curve (sulfur emissions forcing) that just as obvious had a fraction of Gaia's impact on temperatures.
As Judith Curry (a renowned climate scientist) states:
"I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance...the authors have put forward one possible explanation for the lack of warming, but an explanation associated with natural internal variability associated with the ocean oscillations is at least as plausible as the explanation put forward by the authors."
July 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Radical Green Groups & Activists Plot To Increase Spread of Climate Change Misinformation - "Making People Afraid Is Alright"
Read here. As the actual, empirical climate evidence has monstrously failed to support even the most minor of global warming predictions, let alone the ludicrous, catastrophic-cult hysteria pushed by fringe green elements, the AGW activists now plan to unequivocally fabricate their climate misinformation in order to frighten the public and policymakers.
Despite the avalanche of continuous global warming lies and anti-CO2 propaganda that green radicals got published by their "science" reporter puppets in the mainstream press, the public has roundly rejected the crisis and catastrophic scenarios. It is clear that this strategy of fear has not worked, yet the green PR flaks have decided to double-down by utilizing a 100% climate-lie campaign to scare the gullible and weak-minded (hmmm...that would be your typical liberal/progressive/Democrat watching CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, BBC and etc.).
The new PR plan by the crazy greens is to blame every single weather event on climate change. It does not matter any longer if it is a pure 100% lie; what matters is that it scares people by constant repetition.
"Named the ‘Stonehouse Standing Circle Summit’, it was a gathering of “some of North America’s leading communications professionals and academics”, the report put it. Edward Maibach and Anthony Leiserowitz were listed, as were chiefs from a host of public relations and lobbying firms and activist organizations...What one can gather from the document is quite interesting. Initially it starts with the blasé interpretation of environmentalism which is in vogue currently: ‘environmentalism is a failure’. How and why has environmentalism ‘failed’?""
"The main solution proposed by the delegates, we learn, is the exploitation of crises to ratchet up public mindfulness of climate change...The only solution, the report concludes is to have a “SWAT team” of public relations personnel who will “ready to go into action immediately” as a disaster occurs, and immediately link the disaster to ‘climate change’ across a wide variety of media platforms."
"The methods advocated are clear—emulate advertisers and marketers in ‘taking advantage of current events’, don’t be caught by surprise by disaster but instead meet and plan ahead, develop a ‘coordinated crisis response strategy internally’, and ‘get out of the gate quickly to set the tone of the coverage’. Making people afraid is alright..."
Unfortunately for the greens, who are now submerging themselves into the ash heap of history by embracing and advocating Orwellian propaganda techniques, the public will still desire credible sources of information about weather and climate science sans the hysteria and faux-crisis window dressing. For example, putting current weather incidents into the context of the past will still be widely demanded by the public, as will the documentation of the massive number of failed AGW predictions over the recent past, that the usual big green PR types are paid to cover up.
The market for accurate climate science and weather facts is huge, which an ever growing number of alternative sources provide, thus making the lives of the Orwellian PR-based climate liars a constant career of failure and misery.
July 11, 2011 at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don't Work
Read here. The admission by a new paper published in the PNAS journal that there has been no global warming since 1998 is stunning in its implications. First, it unabashedly means that UN and national government climate scientists and bureaucrats have simply been lying about the "accelerating," "unequivocal," and "unprecedented" warming that supposedly took place over the last decade plus.
Second, it means the multi-billion dollar climate models that have long predicted global warming (due to the continuous growth of human CO2 emissions) are essentially worthless. Since 1998, the models have been an admitted disastrous failure - they don't work as promised or as advertised by the IPCC.
To further emphasize this latter point, a new peer reviewed study by Fu et al. determines that the climate models have consistently exaggerated the predicted warming of the tropical upper atmosphere. The failure of this prediction is a body blow to the "consensus" science.
If the atmosphere does not actually warm as predicted, the feared IPCC global warming tipping point can't happen.
Realistically and objectively, the evidence grows that the climate model predictions are based on the robustly dysfunctional, teetering CO2-based AGW hypothesis.
"“IPCC AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) GCMs (General Circulation Models) predict a tropical tropospheric warming that increases with height...“One of the striking features in GCM-predicted climate change due to the increase of greenhouse gases is the much enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Here we examine this feature by using satellite MSU/AMSU...“IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979-2010...While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep-layer troposphere warms faster than surface, this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations.”" [Q. Fu, Syukuro Manabe, and C M Johanson 2011: Geophysical Research Letters-(in press)]
Additional failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.
July 10, 2011 at 08:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
AWOL Global Warming: Current Satellite Measurements Confirm Ocean Cooling Continues Since 2002
Read here. Ocean temperatures are critical force in the world's climate. The best satellite technology confirms that the oceans remain in a cooling trend. (click on image to enlarge)
Additional modern temperature charts.
July 10, 2011 at 07:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New European Temperature Data: Since 1998, Winters In Europe Are Significantly Cooling
Read here. From the EU environmental agency, new temperature records confirm that recent winters exhibit a cooling trend. (click on image to enlarge)
Additional modern temperature charts.
July 10, 2011 at 05:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Expert Research Completely Discredits IPCC Prediction That Global Warming Causes More Hurricanes
Read here. The IPCC has been a literal cornucopia of bad climate predictions, which seem to be never ending as new climate research is accomplished and published. Another recent example of this phenomenon is a study, by Gabriel Vecchi and Thomas Knutson, that conclusively finds that the predicted huricane increase due to global warming has not happened.
"Prior to the satellite era (i.e., before 1966), most of the information about tropical cyclones in the Atlantic ocean came from either ship tracks (most of which tried to avoid the storms) or when the storms passed close enough to be detected from land. This tended to leave a lot of the Atlantic Ocean basin unmonitored. And in these observation-free areas, hurricanes may have come and gone without being detected..."After adjusting for the estimate of missed hurricanes in the basin, the long-term (1878–2008) trend in hurricane counts changes from significantly positive to no significant change (with a nominally negative trend). The adjusted hurricane count record is more strongly connected to the difference between main development region (MDR) sea surface temperature (SST) and tropical-mean SST than with MDR SST. These results do not support the hypothesis that the warming of the tropical North Atlantic due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has caused Atlantic hurricane frequency to increase."" [Gabriel Vecchi, Thomas Knutson 2011: Journal of Climate]
Additional failed-prediction, hurricane-tornado and peer-reveiwed postings.
July 09, 2011 at 05:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Speaking of No Global Warming, U.S. Remains In Cooling Trend Per The New June NOAA Data: -3.5°F/Century
Much to the galactic chagrin of global warming alarmists and their collaborators at the NY Times and Washington Post, a major peer reviewed study by an avowed alarmist found no global warming since 1998. This finding confirms what the skeptics have been stating over the last 5 years.
When looking at the temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S. as the graph on the left depicts.
This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. temperature data records, the 12-month period ending April was the 4th coldest June-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, June 2011 was 1.6 degrees below the hottest June ever (June 1933). Source of chart here.
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.5°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending June 2011 (July 1, 2001 thru June 30, 2011), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 13.0°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Additional modern, historical and fabricating-fake temperature charts.
July 08, 2011 at 03:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
More Confirmation That Unprecedented Global Warming Happened In Past - Say, The 1930s
Now that scientists have confirmed that global warming has been entirely missing since 1998, possibly the the lamestream press will finally gain the courage to finally report actual weather and climate facts, such as reporting the global cooling trend since 2002. This would be a huge improvement versus their modern method of doing climate science by press release.
Initially, they might start addressing the unprecedented warming that took place during the 1930s well before the large human CO2 emissions. The fact that the 1930s had a much larger impact on U.S. temperatures than either 1990s or the 2000s should be of interest; also very germane to the modern "unprecedented" warming deception foisted on them by climate scientists more interested in fame and fortune. (click on image to enlarge)
1930s: 24 states
1950s: 5 states
1990s: 5 states
2000s: 1 state
Updated: Both map and list above updated with more current information from here.
Additional modern temperature charts.

July 07, 2011 at 08:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Experts Find Deep Arctic Water Temps Fall By 1 Deg. - Bizzarro Theory That "Global Warming Hides" In Deeper Waters Not So Hot
Read here. Global warming scientists and alarmists are always trying to rationalize why the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is in continuous fail mode, and why the globe is cooling and not warming as they predicted. Besides the infamously lame "aerosols overwhelm CO2" excuse that is trotted out every few years by elite losers, the other favorite excuse is that global warming actually goes and hides in the deep ocean basins, where no one can ever seem to find it.
The "warming is hiding" hypothesis is also fairly lame as the latest evidence reveals, which is not a surprise since only greens/lefties/liberals believe it.
"Data from Catlin Arctic Survey 2011, collected during an eight-week expedition from March to May, indicates the temperature of Arctic seawater below 200 metres depth has decreased by a ‘surprising’ one degree Celsius in comparison with previous observations...“What was most surprising was the degree of change; even the most incremental differences in ocean temperatures matter. To put this temperature change in context, global sea temperatures rose by only 0.25 of a degree Celsius in the last 30 to 40 years but this was enough for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to state the oceans are warming.”"
July 07, 2011 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
May, 1926: Explorers Find Open Water At North Pole --- July, 2011: North Pole Solid Ice
Read here. Explorers floating over the North Pole during May 1926 "saw much open water at the North Pole" from the dirigible Norge.
In contrast, the July 6, 2011 view from a satellite that reveals no open water at North Pole. Open water does exist close to the shorelines of land masses, which is normal during summer months.
Image source here.
Additional strange and severe weather/climate headlines.
July 07, 2011 at 04:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
More IPCC Fabrication? Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Robustly Enhanced To Produce Larger Warming Predictions
Read here and here. The IPCC's global climate models are essentially driven by the climate's sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. To produce predictions of dangerous and accelerating global warming, all that needs to be done is to increase the CO2 sensitivity condition that the models are based on. Apparently, that is what the IPCC has done, which makes it easy-peasy to convince policymakers that global warming is a threat.
"As most people know, I am a lukewarmer -- somebody who accepts carbon dioxide's full greenhouse potential, but does not accept the much more dubious evidence for net positive feedbacks on top, and who therefore thinks that a temperature rise of more than 2C in this century is unlikely...This view just got a strong boost. Nic Lewis, the indefatigable mathematical sleuth who helped expose the mistakes in a paper about Antarctic temperature trends has been looking at how the IPCC estimates climate sensitivity -- that is, the warming expected for a doubling of CO2. He finds that the one study that estimated sensitivity entirely from experimental data -- Forster and Gregory 2006 -- was distorted by the IPCC when it came to present their results."
July 06, 2011 at 04:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
New Peer-Reviewed Study: Al Gore & 97% of Climate Scientists Wrong About CO2-Warming Caused Droughts
Read here. It has been well established by the left/liberal lamestream media that 97% of "climate scientists" (that's all of 75 people) take their science lessons from Al Gore, the AGW Nobel prize winner. During 2007 Congressional testimony, Al Gore claimed that "droughts are becoming longer and more intense." As a result, a team of scientists decided to do a fact-check on Mr. Gore's (and his renowned 75 disciples) AGW-science claims. (Okay, okay.....probably Stambaugh et al. didn't give a hoot about Al Gore and the 97%-team.)
This new research determined that the 20th and 21st century droughts have been of little significance when compared to both the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age droughts that were incredibly severe.
"The six scientists report that "20th century droughts, including the Dust Bowl, were relatively unremarkable when compared to drought durations prior to the instrumental record." They note, for example, that the 19th century was the driest of the past millennium, with major drought periods occurring from about 1816 to 1844 and 1849 to 1880, during what they describe as the transition out of the Little Ice Age...write that "the approximately 61-year drought in the late 12th century (ca. AD 1148-1208) appears to be the most significant drought of the entire reconstruction," noting that it "corresponds to the single greatest megadrought in North America during the last 2000 years (Cook et al., 2007), as well as "unmatched persistent low flows in western U.S. river basins (Meko et al., 2007)." And this drought, as they describe it, occurred during the middle of the Medieval Warm Period..." [Michael C. Stambaugh, Richard P. Guyette, Erin R. McMurry, Edward R. Cook, David M. Meko, Anthony R. Lupo 2011: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology]
Additional drought-flood, severe-weather, climate-history and peer-reviewed postings.
July 06, 2011 at 06:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Faux Global Warming Is Caused By Concrete: Idaho Provides Vivid Example of Urban Heat Island Heat Impact
Read here. Most official thermometers recording daily temperatures are nowadays located in urban settings (airports are popular settings) where concrete, asphalt and metal raise the surrounding area temperature. As a result, global warming anomalies reported by the official climate agencies are biased warmer, which are never correctly adjusted to remove the urban heat island impact (bias).
This chart from 'The Inconvenient Skeptic' is a current example of the 'urban heat island' effect on temperatures.
July 05, 2011 at 06:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Global Warming Alarmists Again Try The Lame 'Aerosol Masking' Excuse To Explain Cooling - U.S. Data Refutes
Read here and here (scroll down to "A most interesting new paper").
Scientists who are proponents of catastrophic global warming now admit there has been no warming since 1998. They blame increased aerosol pollutants from China as being the reason why temperatures are cooling versus warming. Unfortunately, actual air quality measurements reveal the galactic bogosity of that claim. (click on charts to enlarge)
For example, U.S. air quality since 1990 has improved tremendously with vast reductions in air aerosols and particulates as the chart on left reveals. While aerosols/particulates over the U.S. were dramatically decreasing, the U.S. surface temperatures were falling as shown in the chart on the right.
The lack of warming due to increased aerosols is regurgitated lameness that "climate scientists" always attempt to fall back on when actual empirical evidence invalidates the AGW hypothesis. It's more bogus science from the 'Twilight Zone' of the climate science establishment.

Additional modern and historical temperature charts.
July 05, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Latest Global Temperature Data Confirms That Unequivocal Global Cooling Is Accelerating
Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998. This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC Climategate scientists claims of "unequivocal," "unprecedented," and "accelerating" global warming they have made over recent years. Global warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material also supports.
In a previous post, we reviewed the last 15 years of HadCRUT temperature records, which show that global warming has become insignificant. In fact, one could accurately state that a global cooling trend is now replacing a global warming trend in an "unequivocal" and "accelerating" manner, using the greens' own favored warming alarmist terms. (click on each image to enlarge)

When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus the May 2011 10-year trend).
As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction. In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by -0.67°C.
This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of "business as usual" increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the "consensus" claims of IPCC "climate scientists" and predictions of the bureaucrats' climate models. (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have failed.)
The lower right chart depicts a similar global cooling trend outcome over the last 15 years. Using the same monthly anomaly data, this chart's per century trends are based on 5-year linear calculation.

Regardless of how the temperature anomaly records are examined, the last 15-year span has seen the global warming trend fade as the world seemingly moves into a global cooling mode (the continental U.S. 15-year record of temperatures confirms this cooling trend). How long this will persist and how deep the cooling trend may become is pure speculation. And indeed, there is no concrete, empirically proven, scientific reason to assume the cooling will continue - the climate is complex and chaotic, which makes accurate predictions impossible.
These are the take home facts:
1. Global warming is neither unequivocal, accelerating, or even unprecedented.
2. Global cooling is becoming a trend but it's not clear whether that trend is accelerating and unequivocal - circumstantial at this point.
3. Rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused the requisite acceleration of global temperature increases.
4. CO2 levels appear to have little impact on global temperatures.
5. Global temperatures are in a deceleration mode, totally contrary to IPCC's climate models.
6. Recent severe weather events (2010 and 2011) are not a result of increasing global temperatures; based on the actual temperature evidence since 2001, recent severe weather would more likely be a result of accelerating cooling.
7. Climate models have been stupendously wrong about global warming and associated climate change, time after time.
Additional modern temperature charts. Unequivocal fake warming, temperature fabrication charts.
July 04, 2011 at 03:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Expert Analysis of Empirical Evidence Confirms Hail Size Not Tied To Global Warming
Read here. Climate alarmists have made careers of claiming that severe weather is more frequent and of increasing intensity as a result of global warming. Many scientists, including those in China, don't necessarily believe the climate science emanating from green/left/liberal sources so they end up doing their own research to determine facts. In the case of hail size, Chinese scientists examined climate records to determine if hail was growing larger because of global warming.
Xie et al. examined records from four regions of China covering the 25 year span of 1980-2005. They found no significant relationship overall with global warming and the size of hail.
"...produced by a trio of scientists from Peking University and the University of Hawaii who must not have received the memo on global warming and extreme precipitation events as they state “The question remains as to whether hail size has been changing in response to the warming climate” (go look up “Global Warming and Hail” and enjoy 50,000 sites on the subject). Xie et al. collected hail size information from stations throughout China and at the end of their analyses, they state “Here, we found no significant long-term trend in hail size based on the proportion of severe hail indirectly in the four regions in China, suggesting that hail size, as an important aspect of hail climatology, may not be sensitive to the intrinsic natural variability or climate change in the last 2–3 decades.” Oops, another failure to link extreme precipitation to global warming." [Baoguo Xie, Qinghong Zhang, Yuqing Wang 2010: Journal of Climate]
Additional severe-weather and peer-reviewed postings.
July 01, 2011 at 06:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Chinese Research Discovers There Was Historical "Unprecedented Warming" Before There Was Modern "Unprecedented Warming"
Read here. Depending on the information source, modern "unprecedented" warming is an increase of +0.5 to 0.7 degrees Celsius. Despite the hysteria expressed about this increase by the media and alarmists, in both the historical and ancient past there have been warmings that exceeded the modern warming.
Recently, a prominent climate scientist came across a long forgotten study published back in 1973 that documents the large warmings and coolings that took place in China thousands of years ago. As an example, the long ago Shang Dynasty, which had its capital approximately at the red spot on the map, experienced extended warming that was found to be 2 degrees higher than modern temperatures. The Shang dynasty existed at this location from 1400 BC to 1050 BC. (map source here)
Other warming/cooling phases affecting the Chinese civilization were documented to range from 2 to 3 degrees over multiple periods.
“The world climate during the historical times fluctuated. The numerous Chinese historical writings provide us excellent references in studying the ancient climate of China. The present author testifies, by the materials got from the histories and excavations, that during Yin-Hsu at Anyang, the annual temperature was about 2℃ higher than that of the, present in most of the time. After that came a series of up and down swings of 2—3℃ with minimum temperatures occurring at approximately 100 B. C. (about the end of the Yin Dynasty and the beginning of the Chou Dynasty), 400 A. D. (the Six Dynasties), 1200 A. D. (the South Snug Dynasty), and 1700 A. D. (about the end of the Ming Dynasty and the beginning of the Ching Dynasty). In the Han and the Tang Dynasties (200 B. C.—220 A. D. and 600—900 A. D.) the climate was rather warm." [Chu Ko-Chen 1973: China National Knowledge Infrastructure]
Additional climate-history postings.
July 01, 2011 at 07:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Phil Jones? "Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models"
Read here and here. Well..okay...the quote in this post's title is what Phil Jones should have really said (he didn't). Instead, he recently proclaimed that global warming finally has become "statistically significant" since 1995.
Jones was speaking of the 15 years starting in 1996 and ending in 2010. Although the warming has become "statistically significant" in his opinion (not others), the actual level of warming is literally immaterial when put into the context of catastrophic warming (from 5 to 10 degrees Celsius by 2100) pushed by government payroll scientists enthralled (enriched?) with alarmism.
To better understand the level of immaterial warming that has happened, look at the chart above (adjacent). The red curve is a plot of monthly HadCRUT anomalies for the 15 years (180 months) ending May 2011. The light blue curve is a 2nd order curve fit of the anomalies. The black dots represent monthly atmospheric CO2 levels and gray curve the 2nd order fitting to those CO2 levels. (charts and stats done in Excel)
First, note how the blue curve turns south, indicating a direction of cooling for the HadCRUT global temps that many scientists believe will continue. The straight linear trend associated with the latest 15 years implies a warming of a tiny +0.53 degrees by January 1, 2100. In contrast, the 15-year period ending May,1996 had a linear trend that translates into an increase of +1.02 degrees by end of century, if that trend still existed - it doesn't. Did we say cooling yet?
Second, does that red curve look in the least like the accelerating, unequivocal and unprecedented global warming being claimed as happening by the UN's IPCC "elite" scientists? Nope, me neither.
Next, note the behavior of Phil Jones' (and the IPCC climate models') favorite climate forcing over the last 15 years. It is more than obvious that CO2 levels continue their long, relentless march upward, as they have done ever since WWII. And obviously, the chart clearly shows the two trends (CO2 and HadCRUT temps) diverging.
Visually, there appears to be no relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures depicted in the chart. And in fact, the R2 statistic for the two comes in at an incredibly low +0.04 - in essence, it appears there is no valid relationship between CO2 and global temps. Of course, Phil Jones and the IPCC deny this, but the actual on-the-ground facts are undeniable: human CO2 emissions appear to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, well below the speculative predictions of the IPCC and its climate models.
One final note about global warming and the recent 2011 severe weather incidents. As the HadCRUT chart depicts, global temperatures started a major decline after March 2010. As temperatures categorically crashed, the world suffered from more cold, more snow, more tornadoes, more rain, more flooding and etc. And what do the lamestream media, Hollywood celebrities, left/liberal politicians and alarmist scientists blame? Why, of course, global warming and human CO2 emissions. Go figure.
Sooo, going back to the title of this post, Phil Jones would have been more accurate and truthful if he had said: "Although statistically significant, global warming over the last 15 Years has been rather insignificant, definitely immaterial, likely irrelevant, and basically inconsistent with the climate models." That sounds like it emanated from an honest, objective scientist, no?
BTW, below are charts for other major temperature datasets for the last 15 years ending May 2011. Regardless of the dataset, global temperatures are in a slight cooling phase presently and they could continue to go down, and then again, they may not. That's what natural climate change is about. (click on all images to enlarge)

Additional modern temperature charts.
June 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Australia's Great Barrier Reef Healthy & Unaffected By Climate Change, Peer-Reviewed Study Determines
Read here. A new study by coral reef experts was just published regarding the health of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR). The concern worldwide, and especially in Australia, is that human activities are destroying the GBR. Global warming alarmists have claimed, hysterically, that global warming was causing the GBR coral to die and the reef to shrink.
As Osborne et al. determined in their study, the GBR is alive and well in contrast to the non-scientific, alarmist hysteria.
"The authors write that "coral decline is frequently described as ongoing with the integrity and persistence of the reef system threatened by a number of different stressors,"...that "climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems."...they decided to quantify the trend in live coral cover of the GBR over the critical temporal interval of 1995-2009, which climate alarmists contend was the warmest decade and a half experienced by the planet to that point in time over the past millennium...four researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science report that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub-regions," with some of the changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." But with respect to the entire reef system, they report that "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." And to emphasize this fact, they forthrightly state that they found "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995."" [Kate Osborne, Andrew M. Dolman, Scott C. Burgess, Kerryn A. Johns 2011: PLoS ONE]
Additional coral reef and peer-reviewed postings.
June 29, 2011 at 05:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
The IPCC's "Missing CO2" Remains A Major Embarrassment of Its "Consensus" Science
Read here. Back in 2009, NASA launched a new satellite that was supposed to locate the 'missing CO2' that the IPCC has found so elusive, to the point of embarrassment. Being unable to account for the still AWOL CO2, which of course is the main ingredient in the IPCC's AGW hypothesis, is well...er...an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the satellite launch failed. A failure likely due to Obama's NASA of HOPE, since they now think there is a higher calling than actual science and launch successes, which is a whole nother story.
With that snark accomplished, the major problem of the missing CO2 remains and there is now a new study (more on that later) that proffers a new hypothesis to the missing CO2 riddle.
Currently, what is absolutely known about the missing CO2 is that it implies the IPCC's AGW "settled" climate science is not really settled, by a long shot. Essentially here are the facts regarding the "missing CO2."
1. Scientists estimate that only 50% of each years new CO2 emissions can be accounted for - yes, that means the other 50% is missing.
2. Since pre-industrial times, some 499 billion tons of CO2 has been emitted by humans.
3. Since pre-industrial times some 266 billion tons have been stored in the atmosphere; some 118 billion tons has been stored in the oceans; and, these two figures combined represent 334 billion tons stored.
4. Since pre-industrial times, some 165 billion tons of human CO2 emissions have gone missing. (The 165 figure is the difference between 499 and 334 billion tons.)
5. The IPCC "scientists" claim that emitted human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years.
6. The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years. (click on chart to enlarge)
Based on all the above, how could any climate scientist, let a lone the IPCC, claim that the science is "settled"? Not only are vast amounts of CO2 emissions not accounted for on a yearly basis, there is also the known IPCC claim that human CO2 emissions are stored in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousand of years yet 50% goes "missing" each year - in other words, in reality, it ain't stored in the atmosphere.
Thus, not surprisingly, the IPCC and its quack climate scientists resort to a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo speculation to get around these known, major embarrassing CO2 issues with the AGW hypothesis.
Now comes a new study based on...ahem...a computer model that suggests the missing CO2 actually is being absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. Esser et al. propose that a requisite combination of CO2 and nitrogen aerial fertilization explains how the "missing CO2" has actually been absorbed by vegetation, which means it's definitely not remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
As one can see, the science is far from settled and there is no current consensus as to where the 'missing CO2' goes - that's why scientists like Esser et al. keep performing new research.
"In pursuing this course of action, Esser et al. found that nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere in the absence of an increase in the air's CO2 concentration "would result in only minor additional carbon accumulation in plant biomass," while rising CO2 alone, without consideration of the nitrogen cycle, would bind roughly half of the carbon in the postulated carbon sink. And in the most realistic situation of all, they determined that "a complete ensemble of rising atmospheric CO2 and N2 fixation, denitrification, and leaching is necessary to achieve the 160 Pg [billion tons] C bound in the terrestrial biosphere between 1860 and 2002 as required by the missing sink concept." [GERD ESSER, JENS KATTGE, ABDULLA SAKALLI1 2011: Global Change Biology ]
Additional greenhouse gas and peer-reviewed postings. Greenhouse gas charts.
June 28, 2011 at 04:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
An Intellectual's Summary: Al Gore & The IPCC Are Irrelevant; CO2 Global Regulation Is Exercise In Futility
Read here. Another excellent synopsis by Walter Russell Mead of Al Gore and his anti-CO2 movement, which has failed miserably, unless wasting billions of dollars and untold human-hours is the ultimate sign of success.
Not sure if Mead is properly designated as an intellectual, but his analysis is exquisite, clearly stating how the whole house of CO2-cards was stillborn from conception. He puts it into a contextual comparison to another infamous failure, the 1920's Kellog-Briand pact that was to outlaw war - forever. That treaty was an absolute flop just like the moronic Kyoto CO2 treaty.
Anyways, a great read and it explains why Gore is now only found in the pages of the Rolling Stone publication instead of on the UN's podium. Thank goodness for small miracles.
Mead's part 1 analysis can be found here.
h/t: Instapundit
June 28, 2011 at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Liberal/Left Stupidity Knows No Bounds When It Comes To Climate Change, As Al Gore Proves Once Again
Read here. Without a doubt, Democrats/liberals/leftists/progressives are committed to proving to the public that they might be dumbest "elites" ever conceived.
The global warming and climate change debate continues to provide the pertinent evidence that leftist-types are either stupendously stupid or hysterically anti-science.
Why would any person possessed with a modicum of common sense, with both feet firmly planted on terra firma, suggest that Mt. Rainier is currently short on snow and snow pack? My god, these people are sooo stupid, no? Again, thanks Al for helping the skeptic cause.
Additional left-liberal stupidity postings.
June 27, 2011 at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Did Blogger Tom Nelson Defeat The "Climate Crisis"?
Read here. Tom Nelson presents a very interesting Google Trends chart showing the comparison of Watts Up With That site traffic versus the terminology of "climate crisis." One could easily surmise from the data that Anthony Watts has slayed the dragon.
But Tom is way too humble and too little recognized by his peers. He's been at the climate blogging scene about the longest of anyone (since 2005) scouring the web for global warming and climate articles. His blog is a must read and source for many skeptic bloggers (including 'C3') and none of us shower the accolades on him for his dedication and persistence. Tom's blog has had a major impact on the climate debate, and he doesn't do it for the money or the publicity.
So, for both Tom and Anthony, congrats and thanks for your efforts - keep it coming!
June 27, 2011 at 05:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
NOAA Temperature Data Rebuts IPCC's Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming
The UN's political and propaganda climate agency, commonly known as the IPCC, has made an ongoing, multi-decadal effort to convince both policymakers and the public that global warming was relentless, unprecedented and accelerating. The well publicized IPCC climate predictions even went as far as to claim winters would be wamer with an associated disappearance of snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
Unfortunately for the IPCC though, and its climate model predictions, and its "consensus" science, natural climate forces made a mockery of the exhibited arrogance and hubris embodied within the United Nations climate propaganda agency.
As fate would have it, large expanses of global geography have experienced colder and snowier conditions during many of the last ten years, totally contradicting the "settled" science of politicians and bureaucrats. Case in point is the vast area of the U.S. and its various regional areas. (click on image to enlarge)
The U.S. has been cooling overall for the past 15 years, and as the chart above depicts, its winters, as reported by the NOAA climate services, have contributed to that trend. This happened despite the IPCC claim that increased CO2 emissions results in global warming, not hemispheric cooling. And let there be no doubt, annual CO2 emissions continue to be large and growing.

h/t: Steve Goddard
Additional failed-prediction postings. Modern temperature charts.
June 26, 2011 at 08:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Since 1990, IPCC's Climate Predictions Have Been Wrong - Billions Wasted On Worthless Fortunetelling
Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.
Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"
The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.
According to Pachauri [IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."
As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.
Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.
Additional failed-prediction postings.
June 26, 2011 at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Giving Thanks For Small Miracles: Why Al Gore Is A Green's Worst Nightmare & Always Will Be
A must read here. Just flat out excellent and well written analysis of Al Gore and his demonstrable failure at winning the hearts and mind of the public and body politic.
Why did ManBearPig fail? As they say, read the whole thing but 'carbon pig' is the essential characteristic that guaranteed 'fail'. Thank you, Al, for being the AGW watermelons' worst enemy.
"Once out of office, he assumed the leadership of the global green movement, steering that movement into a tsunami of defeat that, when the debris is finally cleared away, will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time."
"Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy. Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next."
"A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame. But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine. The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig."
June 25, 2011 at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
GOP's Romney & Huntsman Condone A UN Affiliated Green-Fascist's Threats Directed At Skeptics
Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."
So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.
Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?
These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.
And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.

June 25, 2011 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
A Spectacular Failure: Latest HadCrut & NASA Temperatures Significantly Below IPCC Climate Model Predictions
Read here. Not only are U.S. temperatures below climate model predicted values, but global temperatures are also not behaving in the mode of the 2007 IPCC "consensus" climate models that represent the supposed 97% of scientists who say climate science is "settled." (click to enlarge charts)
The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve ('commitment') was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would "stabalise" at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of "business as usual" CO2 emissions.
As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up, despite the "consensus" science. It also confirms how worthless climate models are for policymakers to rely on as predictive tools.
As this next chart indicates, global CO2 emissions (tons) continue to grow with 2010 levels substantially above the 2000 CO2 emission levels. Clearly, the CO2 growth continues at the pace of the IPCC's "business as usual" terminolgy.

Additional failed-prediction postings. Other modern temperature, climate model and CO2-greenhouse gas charts/graphs.
June 25, 2011 at 05:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Green Fascist In Australia Proposes A Holocaust Solution For AGW Skeptics
Read here and here.
We've long contended that leftists/liberals/greens are some of the dumbest, most anti-science, hysterical persons populating the planet. They also consistently exhibit a love for fascist and totalitarian styles of violence.
The latest example of greens' stupidity, hate and violence? Jill Singer of Australia. What a charming individual and country. We've added her infamous 'final solution' quote to the historical record of greenie craziness: their desires and objectives.

Update: And...let's not forget the Australian green-fascist who wants this done to skeptics.
Additional left-liberal-green postings about their anti-science/hysteria/stupidity/hate.
June 22, 2011 at 08:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Two New Studies: Experts Confirm Global Warming Does Not Cause Increases of Malaria & Heart Failure
Read here and here. Politicians, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, and the lamestream press go out of their way to implicate global warming as the cause of anything that is not desired, including diseases. They make these claims despite a substantial body of peer-reveiwed science saying otherwise.
Two new studies, Haque et al. and Toro et al., analyze the actual empirical evidence and find no connection between global warming and the incidence of malaria and incidents of heart failure.
"The authors write that "malaria is the most important tropical and parasitic disease in the world," noting that in 2008 there were an estimated 243 million cases that accounted for an estimated 863,000 deaths...Haque et al. looked for potential relationships between malaria incidence and various climatic parameters (rainfall, temperature, humidity, sea surface temperature and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation), as well as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is a satellite-derived measure of surface vegetation greenness...And in Bangladesh, where malaria is endemic, they report that in that same year, malaria morbidity and mortality totals were 84,690 and 154, respectively...The six scientists report that "after adjusting for potential mutual confounding between climatic factors there was no evidence for any association between the number of malaria cases and temperature, rainfall and humidity," and they say that "there was no evidence of an association between malaria cases and sea surface temperatures in the Bay of Bengal and NINO3." [Ubydul Haque, Masahiro Hashizume, Gregory E. Glass, Ashraf M. Dewan, Hans J. Overgaard, Taro Yamamoto 2010: PLoS ONE]
"Working with data pertaining to 7450 cardiovascular-related deaths that occurred within Budapest, Hungary, between 1995 and 2004 -- where the deceased were "medico-legally autopsied" -- Toro et al. looked for potential relationships between daily maximum, minimum and mean temperature, air humidity, air pressure, wind speed, global radiation and daily numbers of the heart-related deaths...scientists report and restate their primary finding numerous times throughout their paper, writing that (1) "both the maximum and the minimum daily temperatures tend to be lower when more death cases occur in a day," (2) "on the days with four or more death cases, the daily maximum and minimum temperatures tend to be lower than on days without any cardiovascular death events," (3) "the largest frequency of cardiovascular death cases was detected in cold and cooling weather conditions," (4) "we found a significant negative relationship between temperature and cardiovascular mortality," (5) "the analysis of 6-hour change of air pressure suggests that more acute or chronic vascular death cases occur during increasing air pressure conditions (implying cold weather fronts)," (6) "we found a high frequency of cardiovascular death in cold weather," (7) "a significant negative relationship was detected between daily maximum [and] minimum temperature[s] and the number of sudden cardiovascular death cases," and (8) "a significant negative correlation was detected between daily mean temperature and cardiovascular mortality." [Klára Törő, Judit Bartholy, Rita Pongrácz, Zsófia Kis, Éva Keller, György Dunay 2010: Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine]
Additional infection-disease and peer-reviewed postings.
June 22, 2011 at 05:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Hansen's Global Climate Model In Total Fail: Predicted Ocean Heat Goes Missing
Read here. We've written before about how worthless climate models are as prediction tools, and that their output should never be used by policymakers as a basis for major decisions. Every month it seems there is a new revelation of just how terrible these models are. (click on image to enlarge)
This month, it's the total failure of James Hansen's climate models used at NASA. As the adjacent chart shows, Hansen's model predicted ocean heat to significantly accumulate because humans are emitting ever greater amounts of CO2. Well, we keep emitting CO2 but the oceans stopped gaining heat in the amounts predicted several years ago.
Again, the empirical evidence from actual observations does not support the exaggerated output predictions of AGW-driven climate models. Policymakers need to recognize the robust, consistent model failures and mitigate their influence.
Additional climate-model postings. Climate model and modern temperature charts.
June 19, 2011 at 12:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Canadian Lake's Past Water Levels Refutes Both Mann's 'Hockey-Stick' Climate & IPCC's "Unprecedented" Modern Warming
Read here. The IPCC claims that modern "unprecedented" global warming has caused glaciers and snowpack to shrink, and mountainous areas to become more arid, thus diminishing/eliminating essential alpine river discharges. Whether it's the Himalayas or other mountainous regions though, the empirical evidence does not support the claims of modern warming being "unprecedented," nor the convenient disappearing of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age climates of Mann's 'hockey-stick.'
A new peer-reviewed study by Wolfe et al. found that a Canadian lake's modern water level, which is fed from Rocky Mountain water runoff, is significantly higher than during the Medieval Warming Period and higher than lake levels prior to the extended Medieval span. This is an unequivocal indicator that modern warming is not "unprecedented." (click on image to enlarge)
"A peer-reviewed paper published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters shows that drought of Western North America was considerably worse during the Medieval Warming Period than at the end of the 20th century. The paper also shows much more variation and extremes in the drought record over the past 5200 years than since the advent of industrialization and rising CO2 levels in the latter 20th century. The proxy records clearly show no correlation of drought with the claimed steady CO2 levels...""a new 5200-year record of Lake Athabasca water-level variations, which serves as a sensitive gauge of past changes in alpine-sourced river discharge, reveals that western Canadian society has developed during a rare period of unusually abundant water ‘subsidized’ by prior glacier expansion."" [Brent B. Wolfe, Thomas W. D. Edwards, Roland I. Hall, John W. Johnston 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.
June 19, 2011 at 06:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Analysis of Sediment Cores From Arctic Circle Region Determines Medieval Era Warmer Than Modern Period
Read here. Image source here. (click image to enlarge)
The discredited, bogus 'hockey stick' temperature reconstruction has motivated hundreds to conduct new research on the paleo-climate, utilizing valid scientific and statistical methods. The vast majority of these new studies confirm the anecdotal historical evidence that the Medieval Period was the warmest extended time span over the last 2,000 years.
Velle et al. recently published a peer-reviewed analysis of sediment cores from the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic. The analysis revealed the Medieval Warming in a polar Arctic area to be approximately 0.3°C higher than modern temperatures.
"Working with two short gravity cores and two long piston cores of sediments obtained from the deepest part of Lake Skardtjorna, Velle et al. reconstructed histories of chironomid types and concentrations over the past 2000 years, which they translated into mean July air temperatures based on a modern mean July air temperature calibration data set...in the words of the two researchers, a "warming that occurred at 1000 to 830 BP," where BP = 2003, that "may correspond to what is known as the 'Medieval Warm Period'." And based on their graphical representation of that record, we estimate that the peak warmth of the MWP (~ AD 1000-1170) was about 0.3°C greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. [Gaute Velle, Katrine Kongshavn, H. John B. Birks 2011: The Holocene]
Additonal climate-history and peer-reviewed postings. Historical temperature charts.
June 18, 2011 at 04:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Peer-Research Establishes That Temperatures In China Were Warmer In 1920-40s Versus Modern Temperatures
Read here. (click on image to enlarge)
Global warming alarmists, such as Al Gore and Mitt Romney, who advocate for more government spending, regulations and taxes to make a gallon of gas even more expensive, claim that current global temperatures are "unprecedented." Nothing could be more scientific-nonsense when, clearly, peer-reviewed study after study shows that current modern warming is lukewarm versus previous periods.
The Gore-Romney-Obama nonsense about "unprecedented" warming can't even hold its own during the 20th century, as a new study by Yi et al. establishes without a reasonable doubt. Early 20th century temperatures prior to large human CO2 emissions were hotter than temperatures in the 1990s and early 21st century.
And to emphasize the anti-science hysteria from Democrat/Republican big government liberals/leftists/progressives, this study shows how absurd their claim is that climate change is only due to recent human CO2 emissions.
"In the ongoing global warming debate there is often a significant difference between the perception of what is going on with the Earth’s climate when compared to what is actually going on. There is no greater example of this than the summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere...A recent study is probably the highest resolution reconstruction using temperature and precipitation records from the region and then correlating to tree-ring data to create a high resolution reconstruction of the summer temperatures for North-Central China...it is clear that the peak of the modern warming cycle for the summer months took place 70-80 years ago. It should be noted that the United States set the all time temperature record for 50% of the states back in the 1930′s."
"We concluded that (1) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1484 AD, 1585–1587 AD, 1689–1691 AD, 1784–1786 AD and 1876–1878 AD, were the results of rainless and torrid combination; (2) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1560–1561 AD, 1599–1601 AD, 1609 AD, 1615–1617 AD, 1638–1641 AD and 1899–1901 AD, were first caused by rainless summer, and then controlled by low precipitation and/or high temperature; (3) the droughts, occurred during the years of 1527–1529 AD, 1720–1722 AD, 1813–1814 AD, 1856–1857 AD and 1926–1930 AD, were first caused by torrid summer, and then controlled by both low precipitation and high temperature; (4) the dominant climate pattern within the study area consisted of warm–dry and cold–wet alternations, and the recessive pattern consisted of cold–dry and warm–wet alternations. We also showed that the drought/flood index is a valuable climate proxy in quantitative reconstructions, especially in places where tree-ring data is not available." [Liang Yi, Hongjun Yu, Junyi Ge, Zhongping Lai, Xingyong Xu, Li Qin and Shuzhen Peng 2011: Climatic Change]
Additional "unprecedented"-warming and peer-reviewed postings. Modern temperature charts.
June 18, 2011 at 05:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Algae Research Confirms That North Atlantic During The 1990s Was Cooler Than 1920s-1930s
Read here. There is an abundance of both empirical and anecdotal evidence that the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions were warmer during the early 20th century than the more recent recorded temperatures. (For an indication of the anecdotal evidence about the 1920s and 1930s go here and scroll down to those decades.)
Scientists and Arctic experts now believe that the early 20th century saw exceptional polar and Northern Hemisphere warming that is yet to be adequately explained since atmospheric CO2 levels were so low at the time.
Now a new study by Halfar et al. adds to growing empirical evidence that indeed the North Atlantic area may have been warmer during the 1920s and 1930s.
"The authors write that "mid- and high-latitude crustose coralline algae are an emerging extra-tropical marine climate archive," as was demonstrated during a field calibration study (Halfar et al., 2008), since "they are amongst the longest-lived shallow marine organisms," and since "they show constant growth over their lifespan...Using a regional network of specimens of the coralline alga Clathromorphum compactum spanning portions of the Labrador Current inshore branch from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to both latitudinal extremes of the eastern Newfoundland shelf,...The new temperature reconstruction revealed "the well-documented regime shift and warming in the northwestern Atlantic during the 1990s." But in addition, the eight researchers report that "large positive changes in algal growth anomalies were also present in the 1920s and 1930s, indicating that the impact of a concurrent large-scale regime shift throughout the North Atlantic was more strongly felt in the subarctic Northwestern Atlantic than previously thought." And they specifically state that this regime shift "may have even exceeded the 1990s event with respect to the magnitude of the warming," as "has recently been suggested for the central and eastern North Atlantic," citing the study of Drinkwater (2006)." [Halfar, J., Hetzinger, S., Adey, W., Zack, T., Gamboa, G., Kunz, B., Williams, B. and Jacob, D.E. 2011: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
Additional modern-temperature and peer-reviewed postings.
June 17, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Obama & Romney Despair Over Loss of Favorite Corporate Welfare: Ethanol Subsidy Ended By Senate
Read here and here. The U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly voted to end the lucrative ethanol corporate welfare scheme. The two largest supporters of this billions-of-dollars per year welfare scam are President Obama and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and both remained loyal to the bitter end. Their support was primarily due to pandering for Iowa votes and for immense contributions from the ethanol industry.
Originally, politicians embraced ethanol subsidies as a supposed means to reduce global warming and to provide energy independence, plus Obama's team claimed the subsidy would increase the nation's employment. As this corporate welfare program continued to suck money out of taxpayer wallets, it became obvious that ethanol production/use had no discernible impact on global warming or energy independence or overall employment.
Other than Obama and Romney, the majority of politicians from both parties decided it was time for this brain-dead corporate welfare subsidy to end. When true leadership was required to stare down the pigs at the government trough, neither party's major candidate had the spine to do so.
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Thursday’s Senate vote in favor of quickly killing a major ethanol industry tax break “ill advised,” alleging it will cost jobs...“The Administration supports efforts currently underway in the Senate to reform and modernize tax incentives and other programs that support biofuels. However, today’s amendments are not reforms and are ill advised. They will lead to job loss as our nation begins its economic recovery and pull the rug out from under industry, which will lead to less choice for consumers and greater dependence on foreign oil.”"
Additional ethanol and presidential-politics postings.
Obama and Obama-white are the candidates of big government, big spending, big taxation and economic micro-management. Neither belongs in the Oval office.
June 17, 2011 at 03:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
'Big Green' Destroys IPCC's Credibility - New Revelations Confirm The Lefts/Liberals Anti-Science Bias
Read here and here. Mitt Romney, leading GOP presidential hopeful, believes in the catastrophic global warming boogieman that the left/liberal/green machine has conjured up. Unfortunately for gullible Mitt and other big government 'tax & spend' supporters, the AGW boogieman and associated issues are primarily fabrications of the green progressives' anti-science - indeed, the liberals/progressives have a definite political agenda and real science is not going to stop them.
As scientists around the world have now come to realize, the extremist Greenpeace organization is the principal leftist entity behind the anti-science approach that is now devouring one of its own, the UN's IPCC, from the inside out.
The latest in a long line of embarrassing IPCC anti-science proclamations is the recent "research" claim that 80% of the world's energy needs in year 2050 could be supplied by renewable energy sources. Based on the known science of technology, engineering, economics, demographics, and combined with an improving standard of living for the world's masses, the 80% renewable solution is an impossibility.
Who authored this new bogus IPCC study? Well, the radical fanatics of Greenpeace, of course!
"It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document...It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups...It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period...At least one prominent individual on the other side of the climate debate – Mark Lynas – has publicly recognized how bad this looks...Nor does the IPCC understand that its credibility will continue to be non-existent so long as it continues to allow its own lead authors to pass judgment on research they themselves have authored."
"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario...Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
June 16, 2011 at 04:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
In Another Blow To The Theory That Climate Change Harms Marine Life, New Study Finds That Salmon Love Global Warming
Read here. It is often predicted by global warming alarmists that warming sea temperatures will endanger marine life. Most scientists disagree with these unsubstantiated catastrophic claims, especially as the peer-reviewed evidence does not support them.
And the growing peer-reviewed evidence just keeps mocking the anti-science alarmists: a new research study by Seo et al. determines that Pacific salmon actually prosper and survive longer in waters that are warmer.
"The authors write that "Pacific salmon play an important role as both keystone species in North Pacific ecosystems and as an ecosystem service that provides human food resources for countries of the North Pacific rim,...used multiple regression and path analysis to examine the effects of regional and larger spatial scales of climatic/oceanic conditions on the growth, survival and population dynamics of the species...determined that growth of one-year-old chum salmon in the Okhotsk Sea "was less during the period from the 1940s to the mid-1970s compared to the period from the mid-1980s to the present," which result "was directly affected by warmer sea surface temperatures associated with global warming." And they add that "the increased growth at age one led directly to higher survival rates and indirectly to larger population sizes." [Hyunju Seo, Hideaki Kudo, Masahide Kaeriyama, 2011: Environmental Biology of Fishes]
Additional species-endangerment and peer-reviewed postings.
June 16, 2011 at 01:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
EU Scientists: The Alps Big Glacier, Despite Modern "Unprecedented" Global Warming, Was Smaller In The Past
Read here. The IPCC and climate alarmists have become well known for their hysterical and failed glacier catastrophe prognostications. To add to the IPCC's growing embarrassment, new research indicates that the Rhône Glacier is currently larger than in previous times, which doesn't lend much credence to their claims of the supposed "unprecedented" warming of the 20th/21st centuries.
Interestingly, due to the glacier's melting, it has actually revealed how warm it really was in the not too distant past - under the glacier were remains of human settlements and forests that are now seeing the light of day, again. Obviously, much to the chagrin of the IPCC's Climategate scientists, the human past has experienced a much warmer climate.
Using novel techniques involving measurement of isotopes Carbon 14 and Beryllium 10, Goehring et al. were able to analyze past glacier growth and shrinkage over the past 11,500 years.
"Until now, scientists have had no accurate way of knowing the long-term history of the glacier. Local records of the ice date back to 1602, and it is clear that the Rhone, like other glaciers in the Alps, has retreated dramatically in the past 150 years. This melting has exposed intriguing clues – remnants of trees from once-forested land, and artifacts of human settlements dating back thousands of years, to times when even more of the land was uncovered and green...the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate...said he was surprised by the evidence of exposure revealed by the isotopes. The amount of Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 they found "told us that not only were the surfaces exposed for significant periods of time, meaning the Rhone Glacier was smaller than today..." [Brent M. Goehring, Joerg M. Schaefer, Christian Schluechter, Nathaniel A. Lifton, Robert C. Finkel, A.J. Timothy Jull, Naki Akçar, Richard B. Alley 2011: Geology]
Additional glacier-ice sheet and peer-reviewed postings.
June 15, 2011 at 02:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
The Left/Liberal Anti-Science Agenda: Despite Actual Evidence, NYT's Reporter Blames Global Warming For Food Production Woes
Read here. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have seen their daily reporting essentially become shrill propaganda pieces, pushing the latest left/liberal/Democrat partisan agenda, no matter how unprofessional and idiotic. Unfortunately for the public, this same mindset, plus a dose of significant anti-science attitudes, has invaded their science reporting also. Latest example is Justin Gillis' ("I-hate-real-data") article on global warming and food production.
Either because of extreme stupidity, or the typical left/liberal anti-science approach, Justin contends that food production has slowed and can't keep up with demand, which "scientists believe" is a result of global warming. Like most "journalists" of the left, real facts and data are irrelevant for Justin:
"Today's New York Times has an article by Justin Gillis on global food production that strains itself to the breaking point to make a story fit a narrative. The narrative, of course, is that climate change "is helping to destabilize the food system." The problem with the article is that the data that it presents don't support this narrative...But this claim of slowing output is shown to be completely false...Far from slowing, farm output has increased dramatically over the past half-century and on a per capita basis in 2009 was higher than at any point since the early 1980s...Completely unmentioned are the many (most?) scientists who believe that evidence is lacking to connect recent floods and heat waves to "human-induced global warming." In fact, the balance of evidence with respect to floods is decidedly contrary to the assertion in the article, and recent heat wave attribution is at best contested. More importantly, even in the face of periodic weather extremes, food prices -- which link supply and demand -- exhibit a long-term downward trend, despite recent spikes...Even the experts that Gillis cites don't really support the central thesis of the article."
In conclusion, this NYT's article is another example of fraudulent science reporting by the Times, which is entirely indicative of their partisan, left/liberal propaganda approach to modern "journalism" (honestly, is it a surprise to anyone that their readership has cratered over the past 10 years?). In addition, most scientists now believe that Justin Gillis is incapable of accurate science reporting and is too dumb to be connecting the dots of the "evil global warming" scare-mongering.
Update: Another NYT's anti-science column re: global warming.
June 15, 2011 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis
Older »
Lijit Search
Google Search

WWW
c3headlines.typepad.com
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Archives
July 17, 2011 - July 23, 2011
July 10, 2011 - July 16, 2011
July 3, 2011 - July 9, 2011
June 26, 2011 - July 2, 2011
June 19, 2011 - June 25, 2011
June 12, 2011 - June 18, 2011
June 5, 2011 - June 11, 2011
May 29, 2011 - June 4, 2011
May 22, 2011 - May 28, 2011
May 15, 2011 - May 21, 2011
More...
Categories
1 - Twitter
1 Peer-Reviewed Studies
? Are Coral Reefs Dying/Endangered
? Are Corporations Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
? Are Current Temperatures Unequivocal
? Are Global Temperatures Accelerating
? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear
? Are Leftists/Elites/Liberals Stupid, Deceitful, Hypocritical, Corrupt, Violent
? Are Modern Temperatures Unprecedented
? Are Oceans Becoming Acidic
? Are Oceans Rising
? Are Oceans Warming
? Are Polar Bears At Risk
? Are Severe Weather Events Due To Global Warming
? Are Wealthy Investors Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks
? Can CO2-Based Energy Be Easily Replaced
? Can Global Temperatures Be Reduced or Controlled
? Can Scientists Predict Climate Results
? Is China A Green Paradise
? Is The Left Destroying Science, Reason, Civility
Al Gore/Env Fanaticism/Alarmism/Religion/Hysteria
Big-Govt Propaganda/Deceit/Stupidity
Bureaucrats/Enviro-Nazis/Thugs
Cancun/Copenhagen Global Warming Fiascoes
Cap & Trade/Carbon Offsets/Carbon Taxes
Climate History
Climate Lie of The Day
Climate Models
Climategate, climate liars, climate fraud
Developing Nations/Impoverished Peoples/Poverty
Electric/Hybrid Autos/Other Trnspt.
Failed Predictions: Model/Human
Global Cooling: Data/Evidence/Trends
Global Warming: Atmos./Ocean Oscillations/Currents
Global Warming: Black Carbon/Soot/Aerosols
Global Warming: Charts/Images/PDFs/EmbedVids
Global Warming: Education/Schools
Global Warming: Evidence-Facts Against CO2
Global Warming: Geoengineering
Global Warming: Jobs/Profits/Taxes/Reparations
Global Warming: Kyoto/Regulations/Sustainability
Global Warming: Negative/Positive Feedback
Global Warming: Non-CO2 Climate Change Causes
Global Warming: Politics/Correctness/Hypocrisy/Corruption
Global Warming: Science Corruption/Censorship/Deceit
Global Warming: Science Fact/Evidence
Global Warming: Science Non-Factual/Speculation/Fiction
Global Warming: Sun/Solar/Cosmic/Orbital/Oscillations/Cycles
Global Warming: Urban Heat Island Bias
Greehouse Gases: CO2/Methane/Water Vapor
Harm To Science Credibility/Reputation
Hysteria: Climate Tipping Points, Alarmist Predictions
Hysteria: Diseases/Starvation/Death/Health Impact
Hysteria: Drought/Flood/Crop Failures/Forest Fires
Hysteria: Earthquakes/Tsunamis/Volcanoes
Hysteria: Greenland/Polar/Glaciers/Sea Ice
Hysteria: Heat Wave/Cold Wave
Hysteria: Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons/Tornados
Hysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Permafrost
Hysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Tundra
Hysteria: Rain/Snow/Hail/Fog/Other Weather
Hysteria: Sand/Dust Storms
Hysteria: Seas Rising/Acidic Oceans/Ocean Circ
Hysteria: Species Endangerment/Extinction
Hysteria: War/Conflicts/Terrorism
Mainsteam Media Bias/Distortion/Deceit/Stupidity
Non Climate Issue: Immigration
Non-Climate Issue: Public Employees/Unions
Nuclear Energy
Politics: Presidential Candidates
Renewables: Algae/Wood/Cellulosic
Renewables: Bio-Diesel/Ethanol
Renewables: Energy Fraud/Scam/Failure
Renewables: Energy Independence/Green Jobs
Renewables: Solar/Wind
Republicans: Memo To
Technology Solutions: CO2 Reduction
Temp Readings: Balloons/Buoys/Satellite/Surface/Urban/Rural
Temp Readings: Ice Core/Other Proxy Data
UN-IPCC/World Govt
Videos/Podcasts

CARBON TAX SHEER BULLSHIT

2011-07-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

Baldrick says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 8:01 pm

Nice drawing Simon ... Just need to add 2 more groups getting money from our Government. The likes of Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery who will still be on the Government payroll long after a carbon dioxide tax is introduced to keep perpetuating the lies.

The second group would be money going to companies to find the holly grail of renewable or infinite energy, which doesn't exist :)

Reply
Kevin says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 9:05 pm

Shouldn't the government be spinning as well?
Reply

Andy G55 says:
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 at 7:01 am

To better represent reality, the arrow going from the Governemnt to the consumer should be much smaller. And there should be a large arrow going into thin air.

Just one line from his latest report is enough:

"Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price." (source) So it isn't the big polluters, is it Julia and Greg?

Lies, lies and more lies from our deceitful government. When will it ever end?

Baldrick says:
Tuesday, 31 May 2011 at 6:29 pm

Well finally the truth, ALL Australian households will bear the cost of a carbon dioxide tax. A tax that is designed to rid the world of 0.00009% of all man-made co2 in the atmosphere and ultimately rid you of your hard earned dollars. Good one Julia and Bob ... now tell the truth that a 0.00009% reduction will do nothing for the
worlds climate and the reason for the tax is purely politics.

Audrey says:
Wednesday, 1 June 2011 at 6:13 am

Using backward logic.

With the value of $28 per tonne of manmade carbon dioxide as an example; and Julia/Bob's insistence of a 0.00009% Reduction.

(0.00009% x World Manmade CO2(tonnes)) x $28/tonne

Wouldn't it be cheaper for Australia just to sack all of the climate change committee, advisers, so on and so on, and just hand over the value of the proposed reduction to what ever greedy world organisation that is demanding it for third world mandatory intervention for insistence on western civilisation way of life/ ie they want a piece of action in their natural resources and mineral wealth..

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what price you put on CO2, it will do absolutely nothing for the environment.

CREDIBILITY CORRUPTED.

very other day our climate gurus table new reports. Here’s the latest: “ScienceDaily (Jan. 20, 2011) — The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between
global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998.”

Next day: ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2011) — Meteorologists at Freie Universität have found a correlation between warming in the stratosphere and cold or warm winter periods. “This could mean that in Europe there will increasingly be periods lasting several decades with predominantly colder winters alternating with periods of warmer winters,” says Semjon Schimanke, who led the research, reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.” That’s a bet each way!

This shouldn’t surprise because most of these academics go public with anything that will maintain their tenures at the many institutions competing for public money. Truth in academia is a misnomer, it’s damned FRAUD!

For the truth, however, simply follow the money trail to uncover key players and their financial interests.

Climate change, for example, has morphed into a massive moneymaker for some, a catastrophic loss for most. This scam took off when Al Gore effectively brainwashed most of the world with his stellar movie production of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Unquestioning educators, incompetent scientists, entire governments, and an utterly
gullible, lefty media swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker—a brilliant campaign comparable only to the Y2K Bug. Gore now refuses any debate on the many lies and myths portrayed in his handiwork.

We laboured “Climategate” ad nauseam when UK’s East Anglia University’s climate experts were caught fudging the books and worse—credibility corrupted!
With no professorial knowledge of climate whatsoever, two greedy choirboys Al Gore and Canadian born Maurice Strong raised the climate scare to religious fervour.

Gore and Strong are disciples of the religion known as Gaia; belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. Strong, until recently, was little known in the US, that’s because he spends most of his time in China teaching them how to make Communist China the world’s next superpower—avarice run amok!
Gore’s climate sham began on Earth Day, April 1995 when he scammed US government grants. Molten Metal’s stock skyrocketed from pennies to USD$35 a share following Gore’s pulpit sermon. In March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry. Seven officers, including Maurice Strong, sold off
USD$15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On 20, Oct. 1996 the company announced the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
By morning, stock plunged 49%, stalling at USD$5. By early 1997, furious stockholders filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Strong was a major shareholder, in yet another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company chaired by him. That case mirrored the Molten Metal sham. Strong boosted the stock value into the stratosphere before flogging it. To escape a jury verdict he and his hucksters agreed to repay USD$5 million. Corruption proven, credibility destroyed!

However, the unethical duo, hot on the money trail, conned Barack Obama to support their new plans. While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that came to play a critical role in today’s US cap-and-trade carbon reduction program. Obama organized grants to launch the privately owned (Gore’s) Chicago Climate Exchange with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

This cozy affair allowed Gore to buy his carbon offsets from himself, the Generation Investment Management with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

Gore’s lifestyle became public for his extravagant waste and toxic, carbon footprint that he still conveniently ignores, and why not with an estimated company turnover of USD$10 trillion—an amount beyond conception.

But, like all frauds, sooner or later the wheels begin to fall off.
On 21 Oct. 2010, Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced it would soon halt carbon trading. The looting of taxpayers and consumers became too hot to handle when the carbon price plummeted to a virtually worthless 10 cents per tonne. Regardless, and greedy for more lucre, CCX flogged the dying dog to the European Climate Exchange (ECX), for USD$600 million who craved a piece of the action.

The final curtain: On 20 Jan. 2011, European Commission officials announced that, “…hackers had stolen the identity of account holders and used their online payment systems to commit fraud.” The Commission said it was suspending most transactions. Czech Republic hackers are alleged to have stolen €6.7 million in emissions certificates. Accounts in Austria, Estonia, Greece and Poland have also been hacked. The ECX has been hacked several times. €69 billion of permits to emit carbon dioxide were traded on the ETS in 2009. Italy’s mafia are involved with hundreds now arrested.

Credibility corrupted! Still want to buy carbon credits? The Australian Government does and will give your money to foreign polluters—pay to pollute is the new game. Sadly, Brown and Gillard will lead us like lemmings over the cliff—idiots, both.

Thought for the week: “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” Jeremiah 5:21
Non of the carbon pricing scams would be possible if it were not for the glassy eyed followers of the new religion called Blind Faith whose derivations are directly from Evidence Free Science.

GOVERNMENT ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY

Prior to the 2010 Federal election, Labor leader Julia Gillard stated the following as an election promise - clearly and concisely:

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."
Press Play to hear Julia Gillard blatantly lying to the Australian electorate

Prior to the 2010 Federal election, shadow treasurer Wayne Swan stated the following as an election promise - clearly and concisely:

"No it's not possible that we're bringing in the carbon tax, that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition."

Press Play to hear Wayne Swan blatantly lying to the Australian electorate

GILLARD'S AND SWAN'S BLATANT LIES EXPOSED

The Labor Party under Julia Gillard was elected in in August 2010 on the basis of the promise not to introduce a carbon tax and other undertakings. But in February 2011, Prime Minister Gillard announced that a carbon tax would be introduced in Australia in June 2012, despite her very plain pre-election promise not to do so.

So by her own clearly stated and recorded words and her action in announcing a carbon tax in 2012, Gillard is now exposed as a blatant liar and not worthy to be a member of parliament, let alone be prime minister of Australia.

If she had lied like this in a job application in either the government or private sector, she could have been prosecuted for fraud and gaining advantage by deception. However this is exactly what Gillard has done to the Australian people - gained the highest job in the land by such fraud and deception.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS THE REASON WE ARE ALIVE

The most preposterous notion involving the theory of human-caused climate change is that the pathetic efforts of humans can somehow affect global climatic conditions and that reduction of human-emitted carbon dioxide will somehow reduce global warming and thus reduce the greenhouse effect.

What firstly needs to be understood is that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the sustenance of life on Earth. If there was no greenhouse effect trapping heat and keeping temperatures at the current levels, life on this planet would become untenable.

The average surface temperature would be around minus four degrees. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, so if this dissipated, the surface of the planet would be as dry as Mars.

In other words, the greenhouse effect is not something bad, as many of these climate change scaremongers are trying to insinuate. It is the most important facet of life on Earth as we know it. Greenhouse gas emissions do not cause any detriment to the planet - they actually help sustain our existence.

HUMAN EMISSIONS CANNOT COMPETE WITH NATURE

The other preposterous notion is that human emissions can somehow influence global climate. In fact it is easy to show that one natural occurrence can make human efforts in this regard look like a drop in the ocean.

Puyohue Volcano

The Puyehue volcano in Chile erupting in June 2011 For instance, in just four days, the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland in 2010 negated every
single effort by humans to control CO2 emissions for at least five years. The eruption of the Puyehue volcano in Chile in 2011 did much the same. But the killer was Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines that erupted in 1991 for more than one year and spewed out more pollutants than the whole human race managed to emit in 40 billion years of existence on the planet. And there are over 100 active volcanoes on the planet at any one time.

This is not to say that humans should just continue emitting pollutants. In fact humans should do what they can to ensure that they don't contribute to a degradation of the environment, but to claim that human emissions can compete with volcanoes, cosmic phenomena, solar activity, oceanic CO2 emissions and other natural phenomena is just ridiculous.

But the most ridiculous concept is that a tax on CO2 will somehow stop those emissions.

WHY THE PUSH FOR A CARBON TAX

The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax is that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found.

Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that industrialised nations are now essentially bankrupt. The creation of money without tangible assets to back it has finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt.

So as the world moves from production to consumption, the emphasis has shifted to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem.

Journalist Richard K Moore has written a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called Prognosis 2012: Towards a New World Social Order that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions.

The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. Of course if polluters actually do reduce emissions, the tax rate will rise to compensate for the reduced revenue, but if polluters manage to actually reduce their
emissions to a marked degree, governments that rely on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading will collapse.

So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emission won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.

CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER STATES THERE SHOULD NOT BE A CARBON TAX

In a speech at an AIG luncheon on 06 February 2008, Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong stated, "The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain."

Wong admitted that imposing a carbon tax would encourage or force industries to go offshore, losing Australia valuable resources and creating unemployment. This admission exposes the lies of the Gillard Labor regime, who constantly claim that a carbon tax will not cause business losses or unemployment.

Wong stated that a carbon tax is "a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target, each time subjecting these adjustments to the inherent Uncertainties embedded in the political process."

STATEMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER PENNY WONG
"A CARBON TAX DOES NOT GUARANTEE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS"

Yes that's right - the government's own Climate Change Minister Penny Wong clearly admitted to The Australian newspaper on 23 February 2009 that "a carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions." In fact anybody with more than half a brain knows that a tax on something does not necessarily prevent it.

When did a tax on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages stop everybody smoking and drinking booze? When did a tax on petrol stop people driving?

Wong's admissions prove that the government has clearly known for some years that a carbon tax is really not the way to guarantee to reduce emissions, therefore it has only one other purpose - to raise revenue for the government. It is more than obvious that the carbon tax is really a scam to fleece the Australian public of
billions of dollars, with no guarantee that emissions will be reduced because of it.

The Climate Change Minister confessed to that more than once.

GILLARD IGNORES THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION

In April 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated that half the greenhouse gases and pollution in Australia was being emitted by just 50 companies. So if that were the case, the most obvious way to eradicate half the harmful emissions would be to deal with those 50 companies and legislate to force them to switch from coal-fired energy to gas-fired energy and also monitor their emissions and fine them if they did not ensure that they complied.

This solution would see a huge and very real reduction in all pollution, not just the theoretical 5% reduction in carbon dioxide that Gillard claims will occur with her $11 billion per year tax. Even if only a 25% reduction in all greenhouse gases was achieved by such a measure, this would be a real achievement, not the bogus reduction of CO2 that Gillard is claiming.

Actually forcing the biggest polluters to stop polluting would ensure a real reduction in greenhouse gase emissions, but of course it would not raise revenue for the government and its quasi-communist ideology of wealth redistribution, which is the whole idea of the CO2 tax.

The problem with a CO2 tax is that it would not stop polluters from emitting CO2, it would merely impose a cost on them for doing so and this cost would merely be passed onto the end-users of their products after the government had reaped the revenue from this tax.

This is why the Gillard Labor government would not countenance any real measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, simply because such measures would actually achieve their goals without ripping off the taxpayers and filling government coffers. In fact, with a CO2 tax, the government would have no incentive in reducing CO2
because that would result in a reduction in revenue. It is the same principle as speed cameras, where a government would lose a fortune if every motorist stopped speeding and the revenue from fines dried up.

CONCLUSIONS OF RENOWNED CLIMATE EXPERTS

Around 31,000 top scientists around the world have stated unequivocally that human-caused global warming or

climate change is utter nonsense. Here are a few statements from such eminent scholars.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself - climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B Laughlin

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical. The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

Legendary atmospheric scientist the late Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA, who authored more than 190 studies and described as one of the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years

“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Japanese UN IPCC scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

US Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

THE ROLE OF ECONOMIST ROSS GARNAUT

To further its agenda for inflicting a carbon dioxide tax on the Australian public, in 2008, the Labor government appointed Professor Ross Garnaut to study and review the alleged human-caused climate change issue.

Firstly, Garnaut is not a climate scientist - in fact he is not a scientist at all, but an economist, so already any opinion directly from him regarding alleged human-caused climate change would be worthless on its own.

Any reasonable person would also have to question Garnaut's agenda, simply because if he reported that there was no human-caused climate change, he would be out of a very lucrative job. So it would obviously be in his interest to keep riding the human-caused climate change gravy train. Garnaut used data and graphs from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis of his postulations and guesses, however that data has now been thoroughly disproven to the extent that even the famed Royal Society has shunned it.

In 2008, out came the Garnaut Climate Change Review, making predictions and guesses - not facts - based on the hypothesis of that discredited IPCC Report of 2007, predictably with the doom and gloom of catastrophe unless something was done about the alleged effects of human-caused climate change. Unfortunately for Garnaut and the Labor government, there has been an avalanche of real climate scientists completely debunking his conclusions, some of which are so obviously wrong, that most experts would be inclined to dismiss the entire report as being a waste of time.

To demonstrate how completely misleading Garnaut has been, Garnaut issued a report in early 2011 that completely and very seriously misquoted the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. He stated that the current CO2 levels were 465ppm (parts per million), yet the true figure happened to be around 386ppm at the time.

That is a whopping 17% error, completely unacceptable by any proper scientist. If Garnaut cannot even obtain and use the correct figures from the sources that accurately measure the composition of the atmosphere, then his so-called
data and conclusions are not worth the paper they are printed on.

However, the problem for the Australian public is that the Labor government will continue to push its carbon tax agenda by continuing to trot out these erroneous reports by an economist - not a scientist - remembering that at best, they are nothing more than predictions and guesses, fooling some sectors of the voting community into falling for this gigantic carbon tax scam. Many ignorant people in the community will continue to believe that Ross Garnaut is some sort of scientist, not just a bean counter co-opted by the Labor government to drum up their case for this insane cash grab.

CLIMATE CHANGE APOLOGIST TIM FLANNERY GETS IT WRONG

Paleontologist Tim Flannery, another self-professed climate change expert, is being paid around $180,000 to sit on the Climate Commission by the Labor government to push its carbon tax onto Australia, however he has made so many wrong predictions, that nobody could ever take him seriously.

Among Flannery's litany of wrong predictions are these gems:

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water. Sydney's dam levels in 2011 were 73% full and rising.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20% decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems." In 2011, the Murray-Darling system was in flood.

Brisbane's dam levels were 100% full and according to figures from Wivenhoe Dam's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106%full on the morning of 07 January 2011 to 148% on the morning of 10 January 2011, much of this excess water having to be released into the Brisbane River.

In 2007, Flannery predicted that global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. He stated, "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20% of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. In Adelaide, Sydney and
Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie [ THE MOST CORRUPT PREMIER EVER - SEE FIRST STORY IN THIS BLOG ] took such predictions so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayer money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate". That desalination plant is now mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned - not just rains, but the worst flooding in Queensand's history - and $90 million has gone down the toilet.

In 2008, Flannery said, "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Adelaide's water storage levels in 2011 were 77% full.

So far, Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages have been so far off the mark, that anybody who takes this man seriously would have to be insane. His
influence on various Labor governments have resulted in the squandering of untold millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

For instance, back in 2007, Flannery warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff. This was a load of rubbish in itself, as nations such as China are purchasing more coal than ever before to burn for energy. However, Flannery suggested that Australia should switch to "green" power instead and he recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," Flannery said. "The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward." Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology and
in 2009, the Rudd Labor government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. It should be known that Flannery has been a Geodynamics shareholder for many years.

This tip from Flannery turned into disaster. The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't. One of Geodynamics's five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement. The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in an alleged warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further delayed, following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region.

With this abysmal track record, how on earth did Flannery land the cushy $180,000 position on the Climate Commission? There's only one explanation - that the Labor government found itself a tame scientist to push its carbon tax agenda and although

Flannery is not a climate scientist by any means, many people will consider him
to be some sort of authority because he is a scientist of sorts - although with nothing to do with climatology.

The fact that federal and state governments, all of them Labor, actually listened to Flannery, took his advice and squandered so much taxpayer money is an indictment on their gullibility and irresponsibility.

What is worse is that this insane Labor government is not only still listening to Flannery, but is paying him around $3000 per week for his baloney. But the gross waste of this money will pale into insignificance if a carbon dioxide tax is imposed.

TIM FLANNERY ADMITS THE FARCE OF THE CARBON TAX

In March 2011, climate change apologist Tim Flannery was asked that if Australians were going to be taxed for emitting carbon dioxide, surely they should at least be given an idea on how much their tax contribution will help cool the planet. He was told that if the taxes of Australians are going to be used to cool the climate, it
would only be fair that Australians should know by how much. Flannery could not answer this question. He thought that a probable amount might be 0.5%, but he could not be sure.

Flannery was then asked how long would it take before this enforced carbon dioxide tax contribution would start to show signs that it is working. His answer was stunning in the extreme.

Flannery stated to journalist Andrew Bolt, "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years." But Flannery wasn't talking about the lousy 1.4% that humans in Australia allegedly emit - he was talking about ALL nations cutting ALL greenhouse gases globally. However, this is merely a guess on his part, because if the truth be known, Flannery doesn't have the foggiest notion of what will happen to the climate, whether humans keep emitting the same stuff or we close down everything and crawl off to live in caves and eat worms.

But having admitted this, Flannery is still acting as the federal government's climate change apologist and travelling around the nation promoting a carbon tax, knowing damn well that it will not reduce CO2 emissions and even if it would succeed, it would only reduce global greenhouse emissions by around one-millionth.

It is obvious that Flannery, who is being paid a lot of money for doing this, is prepared to promote this new religion that will have such a detrimental effect on the entire Australian population, knows that it's a scam.

Flannery's admission clearly demonstrates what a gigantic scam the proposed carbon tax really is. This insane tax is not even aiming to eradicate that whole 1.4% of all Australian human-emitted greenhouse gases, but just 5% of the CO2 component, which is 3.6% of the total.

But when did a tax actually stop something? Have high taxes stopped people from smoking, drinking alcohol or driving cars? Of course not - in fact, the last thing
any government reaping revenue from taxes wants to see is a reduction of that revenue.

THE SCAM RELIES ON BLATANT DECEPTION

The government and proponents of this new tax are relying on the ignorance of the general public as to what is really going to be taxed. The very name of this tax is completely false. It is being called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because the general public associates carbon with that sooty black stuff that comes out of the chimneys of factories and power stations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

THE CARBON TAX IS NOT A TAX ON CARBON
IT IS A TAX ON CARBON DIOXIDE GAS
IT IS ULTIMATELY A TAX ON THE AIR WE BREATHE

It is going to tax the gas on which all life on this planet relies, which is not a pollutant.

It is going to tax the gas that all plant life photosynthesises into oxygen that humans breathe.

It literally amounts to taxing the air we breathe.

CLIMATE COMMISSION IS RIGGED BY THE LABOR GOVERNMENT

In May 2011, the first report by the Government's Climate Commission (CC) warned that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record. This report stated that the biological world was changing in response to a warming world.

It also stated that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation were triggering the changes that are being witnessed in the global climate.

But this is just another government attempt to scam the people of Australia. The Climate Commission members were handpicked by the Gillard Labor government on the basis that they had to believe in climate change. No skeptics or completely independent scientists were permitted to be on this Commission. In other words, it was the same situation as only appointing judges that were sympathetic to the government's political line and no judge who was totally independent would be considered.

On top of that, the Climate Commission's findings are a pile of rubbish. This bunch of government-appointed stooges claimed that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the past decade being the hottest on record. They very conveniently forgot to mention all the drastic heating that the planet had undergone in the past, with temperatures far higher than anything in the present era. In fact about 800 years ago, icy Greenland was sub-tropical and the Arctic was navigable by ships. There are many more instances of severe global heating, as well as a number of ice ages.

This Climate Commission also stated that if nothing was done about alleged human-caused pollution, the planet's temperature would rise by 2º by 2050, less than 40 years away. This completely flies in the faceof the statement of the head of the International Panel for Climate Change, who stated that the planet's temperature
would rise by no more than ½º in a century. So who is to be believed? Actually none of them.

All the predictions are based on completely flawed computer modelling, no better than a long-range weather forecast or a wild guess.

One can only be amazed at the depths to which the Gillard Labor government will stoop to try and impose a CO2 tax. This bunch of inept clowns, having already destroyed the Australian economy with a monumental series of blunders and scams, has rigged a Climate Commission that cannot be believed.

US GOVERNOR WITHDRAWS STATE FROM GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN

In June 2011, Governor Chris Christie of the US state of New Jersey announced that New Jersey will withdraw from a 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program by the end of 2011, saying the program is ineffective at combating global warming. He stated, "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure."

“RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernible or measurable impact upon our environment,” Christie said. Critics of cap-and-trade programs say that they constitute a new form of taxation because they impose additional costs on electric utilities that are then passed on to customers.

Governor Christie hit the nail right on the head with New Jersey's withdrawal from this scheme, simply because what he said was quite correct. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax will have no discernible or measurable impact on the environment. And no politician or scientist has yet been able to definitively show
that human-caused CO2 emission cause global warming, climate change or any other problem.

Of course the big problem with any sort of tax or impost on electricity generators is that they will merely pass the additional cost onto their customers and still keep emitting the same CO2 if not more, as demand increases. This is how all businesses operate, by factoring all expenses into their products and setting prices

for those products that contain the expenses. In other words, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme will not reduce pollution by one iota.

THE SCAM OF HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE

This proposed carbon tax is ostensibly a move to reduce human-caused CO2 emissions and thus reduce so-called human-caused climate change, if at all it exists. This is what the government is saying. But what do the figures say? Very simply, the figures say that the government is completely misrepresenting this issue and every concerned person in Australia should be demanding to know the real motivation behind imposing this massive tax on everything, when it has no basis in fact.

Firstly, climate change has been occurring for millions of years without any human intervention or effect. This planet has been much hotter at many times in its history than now. Back in 1200AD, Greenland was sub-tropical, hence the name, but there were no massive industries that spewed out CO2. So it is a fact that climate does change, regardless of any human activity, because humans cannot even remotely come close to affecting this planet’s climate, when compared to natural phenomena.

This is why you don’t hear much about “Global Warming” anymore, because this planet has actually cooled in the past 100 years. There were two warming periods in the 20th century followed by cooling periods.,The new mantra is “Climate Change” because the climate certainly does change.

The problem is that people with vested interests are claiming that humans are changing the climate to an unacceptable degree, which is utter nonsense.

THE FIGURES PROVE THE SCAM

CO2 is the new enemy, according to proponents of this theory and human emissions of this gas must be reduced, mainly by imposition of a carbon price. This is just a piece of spin that actually means a carbon tax. But how much CO2 do humans actually produce as a percentage of total global greenhouse gases? Here are the figures.

Greenhouse gases constitute approximately 1% of the atmosphere. They are:

Water vapour - 95%
Carbon dioxide - 3.6%
Methane and other gases - 1.5%

Humans can’t do a thing about water vapour - it evaporates from the oceans that cover seven-tenths of the surface of the planet and is very important, because water vapour becomes rain that falls on land. Although it is considered a greenhouse gas, water vapour is essential to all life on earth.

Methane and other gases are emitted by volcanoes and other natural phenomena that are completely beyond the control of humans, therefore until a way is found to stop the 1500 active volcanoes on the surface of the planet and the tens of thousands of submarine volcanoes erupting at any one time on Earth, there is nothing that can be done about it.

So this leaves the 3.6% of the 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 comprises around 0.0036% of the total atmosphere. In other words, CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas that is less than four-hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. However, it has to be always remembered that this gas is the pillar on which all life on earth relies and is neither a poison nor a pollutant.

But how much of this 0.036% CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans? The answer - around 3.4% of that 3.6% - 0.001% is emitted by humans. What does this mean?

Very simply, it means that globally, humans emit around 0.001% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the total human-caused CO2 emissions globally is a whole one-thousandth of one percent - a completely insignificant amount, because it means that 99.999% of all CO2 emissions occur naturally and humans cannot do anything about this.

So let’s say that all the humans on the entire planet shut down every industry and we all go back to shivering in caves and humans stop emitting that 0.001% carbon dioxide. Subtract it from the total CO2 emitted worldwide by all phenomena.

99.999% minus 0.001% equals 99.998%. That is virtually no change whatsoever to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact this is literally unmeasurable.

AUSTRALIAN CONTRIBUTION TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

So what percentage of global CO2 is emitted by humans in Australia that could cause the government to want to impose a carbon tax to reduce it?

The answer - virtually nothing. Here are the facts to prove it.
ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES AT GLANCE

Total greenhouse gas - 1.00% of total global atmosphere

CO2 component of 1.00% - 3.6% = 0.0036% of total global atmosphere

Total human-caused CO2 emissions - 3.4% of 0.0036% = 0.001% of total global atmosphere

Australia's total CO2 emissions - 1.00% of 0.001% = 0.00001% of total global atmosphere Target of 5% reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions - 5% of 0.00001% = 0.0000005% of total global atmosphere

Estimated cost of reducing total global greenhouse gases by an unmeasurable 0.0000005% (five-millionths) =

UNTOLD BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

A VERY EASY EXPLANATION OF THE CARBON TAX

Imagine that the atmosphere is a 1 kilometre long road. All the gases in the atmosphere are lying on that road in their correct proportions. Let's go for a walk along this 1 kilometre road of atmosphere and see what is on it.

The first 770 metres are nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre gone. Only 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. Only 10 metres left.

The next 9 metres are argon, a rare gas. Just 1 more metre to go.

A few rare gases make up two thirds the first bit of that last metre. Just a few centimetres to go.

The last 38 centimetres of the I kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot in the old measurement.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural and there’s nothing we can do about that.

So out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left - just over a centimetre - about half an inch.

That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. World-wide, not just in Australia.

And of those 12 millimetres, Australians emit 0.18 of a millimetre.

That is less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a whole 1 kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what the PM misleadingly calls Carbon Pollution.

DEMONSTRATION OF THE STUPIDITY AND FUTILITY OF THIS NEW TAX

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge is ready to be opened by the Prime Minister.

This new 1 kilometre long bridge has been polished by an army of workers until its entire length is surgically clean.

Then the Prime Minister says that we have a huge problem - SHOCK HORROR - the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

That human hair on the 1 kilometre long bridge would have absolutely no impact on it.

But we would be immensely angry if the PM demanded that we paid billions of dollars in a new tax to remove that hair.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE LABOR GOVERNMENT IS PROPOSING WITH THIS DISGUSTING AND MISLEADINGLY NAMED CARBON REDUCTION POLLUTION SCHEME - REMOVING THE EQUIVALENT OF A HAIR FROM A KILOMETRE OF ROAD BY INSISTING THAT IT IS POLLUTING THAT ROAD.
HOW WILL THEY KNOW IF IT WORKS?

The Australian government is not trying to reduce all CO2 emissions completely with the carbon tax, just around 5% of the CO2 that it claims that humans emit in Australia. So if it actually achieves this target, which is highly unlikely, Australian CO2 reduction of 5% will reduce total global greenhouse gases by a completely unmeasurable, insignificant and unnoticeable amount.

But how will the government or anybody actually know if this massive carbon tax actually does anything? How on earth can anybody measure an unmeasurable percentage of CO2 in total greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer is that they can't. So nobody will know if anything happens.

However, one thing is easily predicted. If global temperatures are seen to rise slightly through whatever natural phenomena that has caused such rises since this planet came into existence, the government will state that the CO2 emitted by Australians has not been reduced by the imposition of the carbon tax and the tax will NEED TO be increased.

Of course if the planet cools, which it is doing anyway, long before any carbon tax has been imposed, the government will crow about the effectiveness of the carbon tax and how this is causing the world to cool, even when a complete idiot will realise that even if Australia's human-caused CO2 emissions are reduced unmeasurable
amount of total global greenhouse gases, this has absolutely no significance whatsoever.

EFFECT OF THE CARBON TAX ON AUSTRALIA

However, if this insane tax is imposed, it will certainly have an effect on the people of Australia. It will make them much poorer by increasing the cost of literally everything and extracting money from them and putting it into the government’s coffers, where like so much of taxpayer’s money, it will be squandered on failed projects or electioneering expenses, so that the government can try and clutch onto power.

Expert modelling and projections show that a carbon tax will cost around $50 billion for the next 40 years, or around $4550 per taxpayer per year, to achieve absolutely no change to the climate of this planet.

One decent sized erupting volcano such as Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines or Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland emits more pollutants in a single day than the total amount of pollution that the entire human race has emitted in 40 million years.

BUSINESS AS USUAL

So what will companies that emit this CO2 do in real terms? Will they actually reduce those CO2 emissions? Here is a typical scenario.

The Aussie Widget Company (AWC) produces widgets which are sold to the public for $1.00 each.

The government imposes a carbon tax on AWC, which now has the following choices:

Absorb the new tax and still make and sell the same number of widgets for $1.00 and suffer a loss in earnings

Reduce the number of widgets it makes to reduce the amount of carbon tax it pays and suffer a loss in earnings

Increase the price of each widget to $1.10 and pass the increased cost of them onto the consumers and still make the same profits as before, but the consumers of the widgets actually pay the tax.

Obviously on economic grounds alone, AWC will not choose Option 1 to absorb and pay the tax itself, because that would reduce its earnings. AWC would not choose Option 2 and reduce production just to reduce its CO2 emissions, because that would also reduce its earnings.

The only scenario that would ensure the survival of AWC would be to choose Option 3 and continue to manufacture the same number of widgets and just add the carbon tax to the cost of each widget and the public will just have to pay more for them.

By doing this, AWC will continue to make the same amount of profit and will emit the same amount of CO2. In other words, the carbon tax will not reduce carbon emissions by companies such as AWC.

Statistics show that literally in every case where additional taxes are imposed on manufacturers or service suppliers, those costs are passed on to the end-users, the consumers.

REDUCE POLLUTION BY ACTUALLY REDUCING EMISSIONS

There is only one real way to reduce pollution and that is to actually reduce harmful emissions. If the government was really serious about reducing emissions instead of merely trying to create and impose a new tax, it would require that all manufacturers install pollution metering devices and that realistic maximum levels of emissions be set by law. Any company that exceeded those levels would be heavily fined and persistent transgressors would be closed down for periods of time.

This is how the USA state of California reduced emissions from cars. It didn't impose a stupid tax that would have merely raised money but not reduced emissions. California legislated that all cars sold in that state by a certain year had to comply with a maximum emission level or they could not be sold. Car makers screamed that it was impossible to meet those reduced emission levels, yet when the deadline was reached, all the car makers managed to meet those reduced levels.

So in California, a tax on car emissions was not required to reduce those emissions, merely a maximum emission level enforced by law. But of course, governments around the world are always scrabbling to find ways of raising revenue, so scaring the citizenry with dire threats of man-caused global warming, climate change and
other nonsense is a good way to soften people up for the imposition of a completely unjustified tax.

CO2 IS AN ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT GAS

In any case, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a requirement for all life on this planet. All plant life absorbs CO2 and by photosynthesis, converts it to oxygen that humans and all living creatures require to exist.

Without CO2, all life on Earth would die. CO2 is odourless, tasteless and non-toxic. CO2 is not a poison. Humans exhale CO2. Humans consume it in carbonated drinks. CO2 released by baking powder or yeast makes bread and cakes rise.

CO2 is used in fire extinguishers and has many other applications of benefit to humans.

To state that CO2 is detrimental to this planet is a colossal lie, designed to scare gullible people into believing that a carbon tax will save them from disaster. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact it is a proven fact that farmers such as tomato growers actually deliberately increase the amount of CO2 in their greenhouses to promote the growth of their produce. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plant life will
grow and thus produce more oxygen for us to breathe.

The other myth about CO2 is that it allegedly affects upper atmosphere in the way that gases such as sulphur dioxide break down the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is heavier than air and it does not rise - it obviously stays at the surface of the planet, which is essential, because that is where the plant life lives and uses CO2 to grow and produce the oxygen that humans breathe.

So CO2 has nothing to do with breaking down the ozone layer or being detrimental to the planet in any way.

Imposing a carbon tax will merely result in increased cost of production that will be passed onto consumers, but will not reduce CO2 emissions by industry. It is nothing more than another rapacious grab for money by government on the basis of deliberate misinformation and scaremongering.

MORE PROOF OF THE SCAM

On 18 March 2011, a British investment company sent out an emailed newsletter stating the following:

SUBJECT: Free Report - Carbon Market expected to double in price by 2013

The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre.

You can find out how to take advantage of this exciting new investment opportunity by simply downloading our FREE Investment Report.

Comprehensive trading strategies

Find out why the price of carbon is set to explode

Discover which credits FTSE 100 companies are buying

Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit market

Sceptre is a leading specialist carbon trading firm that specialises in premium Gold Standard and CDM emission

reduction credits.

“Anyone going for the ‘dash-for-cash’ approach is in for a rude awakening when the carbon market picks up.”
Diane Simiu, Carbon Analyst (Carbon Finance)

“Carbon trading will become the world's largest commodities market.”
Louis Redshaw, Barclays Capital (New York Times)

Now does anybody with more than half a brain think that anybody is going to promote a moneymaking scheme where the basis of it is the alleged REDUCTION of the commodity that drives the scheme? The idea that is being sold to a gullible public is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that will eventually eradicate man-caused pollution and thus save the world. So why would anybody invest in something that is going to be wiped out in the medium to long term?

Of course not. The moneymaking aspect of any scheme relies on it continuing and growing, therefore the sponsors of this scam are really relying on two things - that the human-caused carbon dioxide emissions will continue and increase, thus increasing the profits from the scam and secondly, that the value of the carbon credits themselves will rise, just like stocks and shares, reaping huge financial rewards for those who trade in them and especially those who control the trading.

THE CARBON TAX IS A COLOSSAL SCAM

It is very easy to see from the facts and figures that a carbon tax will not have any effect on climate change and even if it reduced all human CO2 emissions in Australia by the proposed 5%, it will reduce all global greenhouse gas emissions by no more than a completely unmeasurable five-millionths, an amount so insignificant
and minuscule that it is preposterous to even try to do this. But of course anybody with more than half a brain can work out why the carbon tax is proposed - it's just another government money grab that will be achieved by conning the gullible people of Australia into believing the spin.

THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.

Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.

Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming,seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?

There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system
mathematically.

When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.

GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".

Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future.

Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.

In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.

In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late
20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.

In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to
that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China.

They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude "we see
clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".

Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative).

Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided "the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result".

Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century.

Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown.

Yet in spite of this, governments across the world - egged on by irrational, deep Green lobbying - have for years been using their financial muscle and other powers of persuasion to introduce carbon dioxide taxation systems. For example, the federal Labor government recently spent $13.9million on climate change advertising on
prime time television and in national newspapers and magazines.

Similarly, the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research advised the British Government "ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming ... It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour change."

Introduction of a carbon dioxide tax to prevent (imaginary) warming, euphemistically disguised as an emissions trading scheme, is a politician's, ticket clipper's and mafia chief's dream. All will welcome a new source of income based on an invisible, colourless, odourless, tasteless and often unmeasurable gas. No commodity changes
hands during its trading, and should carbon dioxide emissions actually decrease because of the existence of a carbon dioxide market (which is highly unlikely), the odds are that it will have no measurable effect on climate anyway.

Nonetheless, the glistening pot of gold which beckons to be mined from the innocent public is proving nigh irresistible, and it is going to need a strong taxpayer revolt to stop it in Australia.

The present global financial crisis should be inducing politicians not to squander money on non-solutions to non-problems. Yet to support their plans for emissions taxation Western governments, including ours, are still propagating scientifically juvenile greenhouse propaganda underpinned only by circumstantial evidence and GCM
computer gamesmanship.

Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world's granary belts.

Bob Carter is an adjunct professor of geology at James Cook University.

To add some more science to some of the educated comments here (as opposed to comments posted by the religious zealots). The CO2 theory falls apart on more fronts as well... * For anthropogenic CO2 warming to be possible, there needs to be atmospheric warming at 200hPa in the tropics.

Satellite data confirms that in fact a slight cooling is occuring. This destroys the GCM models. * The CO2 saturation effect - now confirmed thru satellite measurements. There is a limit as to CO2s warming potential. This saturation theory (Miskolczi
Constant) has yet to be disproven by anyone. Not to mention a confirmed residence time of between 5-10 years, not 100 that the GCM models use. This destroys the 'tipping point' hysteria.

* Outgoing radiation levels (as neasured by satellite) are six times greater that what the IPCC states. This data has only come to light in the past couple of years. CO2 is simply not trapping the heat that the models suggest. This destroys the 'runaway greenhouse effect' hysteria. The CO2 climate theory is merely a laboratory 'construct' which looks ok in a computer model, but in mother nature it simply does not work.

John Ecob MIET retired chartered Engineer and DD. of Orange NSW Australia Posted at 9:54 PM January 11, 2010

Can the oceans rise? Absolutely NOT. There is 350mill sq km of ocean and 150mill sqkm of land. All floating ice returns to the same volume of water it displaces so forget all floating ice. Only Greenland and Antarctic land ice caps can supply the water to raise oceans. The temp. in Antarctic is av. -45degrees C and goes as low
as -85degrees C. On summer the average zero doesnt get to the land mass except at the Larson Peninsula.

The heihgt of the ice cap is 4500 m in Antarctic and 3500m in Greenland!!! Ice is up to 4000m THICK. Greenlands Ice cap is -20 and -30 degrees C. And what about latent heat to change ice to water without a temp. change? It takes as much heat to change ice to water at zero C as it does to heat same vol. thro' 80 degrees C. The floating ice eg Arctic can ALL melt with NO rise in seas and the land ice caps are up to 4500 m ABOVE SEA level and have NO SUN for 6 months of every year! Mr Obama said at Copenhagen that the ice cap would melt in 5 years.

Such ignorance is appalling.

Tony in Sydney of Sydney Posted at 12:30 PM December 28, 2009

The globe warming debate is over, forget about it and adapt if we have to. China, America and India have seen to that. They have little or know interest in doing anything that will be of relevance to reduce their emissions to the levels warming scientist have projected to be critical. Here in Australia we emit around 1% of the global emissions and China are increasing by that amount currently annually and their economy is still growing rapidly, just give them 10 years. About using precise language if he is a scientist, why is it that all the name-calling and put downs coming from the believerâ??s side of the argument.

It smells of politics more than science, which is why it not referred to as global warming anymore but climate change (weapons of mass destruction / war on terror).

(1) The solar insolation, expressed as terawatts, representing the averaged rate at which solar energy hits our planet, considering day, night, winter, summer, cloudy, or clear. 32,000 terawatts (a terawatt is one million million watts.

(2) The estimated total human rate of energy production considering all manufacturing, transportation, and other processes in 2007. 16 terawatts.

This shows us that 2000 times as much energy reaches the earth from the sun than all mankind’s activities put into the earth’s environment. Do you still think we have a predominant effect on global temperatures? That would be like an ant running up an elephant’s leg with rape in mind.

Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them?

By Edmund Contoski, Liberty Unbound

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen."

— Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor Of its first three reports.

During the 20th century, the earth warmed 0.6 degree Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit), but that warming has been wiped out in a single year with a drop of 0.63 degree C. (1.13 F.) in 2007. A single year does not constitute a trend reversal, but the magnitude of that temperature drop — equal to 100 years of warming — is noteworthy. Of course, it can also be argued that a mere 0.6 degree warming in a century is so tiny it should never have been considered a cause for alarm in the first place. But then how could the idea of global warming be sold to the public?

In any case, global cooling has been evident for more than a single year. Global temperature has declined since 1998. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide has gone in the other direction, increasing 15–20%.

This divergence casts doubt on the validity of the greenhouse hypothesis, but that hasn't discouraged the global warming advocates. They have long been ignoring far greater evidence that the basic assumption of greenhouse warming from increases in carbon dioxide is false.

Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide were not significant before worldwide industrialization began in the 1940s.

They have increased steadily since. Over 80% of the 20th century's carbon dioxide increase occurred after 1940

— but most of the century's temperature increase occurred before 1940! From 1940 until the mid-1970s, the climate also failed to behave according to the greenhouse hypothesis, as carbon dioxide was strongly increasing while global temperatures cooled. This cooling led to countless scare stories in the media about a new ice age
commencing.

In the last 1.6 million years there have been 63 alternations between warm and cold climates, and no indication that any of them were caused by changes in carbon dioxide levels. A recent study of a much longer period (600 million years) shows — without exception — that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

As the earth warms, the oceans yield more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because
warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide as colder water.

The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas.

Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.

Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)

Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more.

In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're
living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity. There have been times when volcanic activity was ten times greater than in modern times.

But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute.

The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?

Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water. But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300–500% greater than today.

Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15–20 times what it is today. Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.

Today we're told catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That's exactly opposite to the "runaway" warming that computer models predict should occur.

Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years. There is no reason to trust the computer predictions — or base public policies on them.

Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

There are other examples where the computer models fail to agree with reality. According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus falsifying the models.

All of the models agree — for sound theoretical reasons — that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2–3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth's surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements
furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect.

Everyone knows the sun heats the earth, but the public is generally unaware that the sun's heat is not uniform.

Solar radiation is affected by disturbances on the surface of the sun, called "sunspots," which correspond to the sun's 11-year magnetic cycle. There are also several solar cycles of longer duration. Superimposed, these cycles might augment or cancel each other. There are also periods when sunspots "crash," or almost Disappear, which can lead to dramatic cooling of the earth for several decades.

This is what happened 400 years ago during the Maunder Minimum, which was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. During one 30-year period during the
Maunder Minimum only about 50 sunspots were observed, compared to a typical 40–50 thousand.

Sunspots have now virtually vanished. You can check out pictures of the sun day after day after day for the last few years here. Very few show more than one sunspot and many show none. We are currently at a solar minimum, awaiting the start of the next solar cycle. If sunspot activity does not pick up soon, we could be in for some seriously cold climate. The jury is still out on sunspot numbers.

In any case, some climate scientists believe the length of past solar cycles points to a cool phase in this century. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, believes a slow decline in temperatures will begin as early as 2012–15 and will lead to a deep freeze in 2050–60 that will last about 50 years. Climatologist Tim Patterson thinks that by 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest 11-year sunspot cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. He says, "If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming'
would have had."

The global warming advocates make all sorts of false claims about dire consequences of global warming. They claim it will result in the spread of malaria, food shortages, more human deaths, more violent weather, and a loss of biological diversity through the extinction of species. All untrue. The largest number of species — the greatest biological diversity — is in the tropics.

As you move away from the equator, you find fewer and fewer species, until you reach the earth's poles, where there is zero diversity because nothing can live there.

Agricultural productivity is also reduced by cold climate, not a warmer one. That's why Siberia and Alaska are not noted for agricultural abundance. A warmer climate would mean longer growing seasons and would make agriculture possible in areas where it isn't today. And there are at least 300 studies showing plants and forests grow faster and more luxuriantly under conditions of increased carbon dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------
From the Federal House of Representatives own report - “Australia’s uranium exports currently displace at least 395 million tonnes of CO2 per year, relative to use of black coal. This is equivalent to 70 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions for 2003. Australia’s total low cost uranium reserves could displace
nearly 40,000 million tonnes of CO2 if it replaced black coal electricity generation. “

And Julia’s plan will cut an insignificant 16 million tonnes a year until 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Gillard on Thursday:

The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020.

So what difference would this make to the world’s temperatures?

Let’s assume the climate really is as sensitive to carbon dioixde as the IPCC has claimed - a very big assumption - and lets accept the calculations presented in Nature:

The team used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change… Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. The new research shows that, despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.

So the calculations. Gillard’s massive taxes and billions in subsidies for green powers will over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming, providing she does all she claims she will, and provided global warming theory works as advertised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (04:44pm)

Listening to Gillard today at the NSW Labor party conference one would be forgiven for thinking that Australia had just won some incredible world lottery. There she was sprouting how everyone is going to have more dollars in their pockets and there will somehow be more jobs!?!

It really defies belief that the leader of this country can mindlessly pursue such a pointless cause, with such destructive consequences to us a nation, all the time being allowed by our media to avoid any scrutiny over the science and basic problems associated with what they are doing.

The total silencing and shutdown of debate is dangerous and worrying to anyone who believes in representational democracy. The wheels are about to fall off the Labor bus of fools and watch for the fallout as all those silent backbenchers, who didn’t have the integrity or honor to stand up when it counts, desert Gillard and all her terrible failed policies.

I’ve said it before in here, the longer Gillard is in charge, the more labor ministers will be voted out and the harder labor will fall.

Keep her labor, keep her as long as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (03:59pm)

It needs to be made clear to people that the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is LABOR’S GST.
The CO2 tax is a broad based consumption tax, same as the GST.
People won’t stand for an increase in the GST. So Swan won’t even consider increasing it (at the tax summit later this year) but will happily enact an entire additional CARBON GST.
But unlike the GST it is not a smart tax, not fair, nor economically neutral. Labor’s CARBON GST does not eliminate inefficient state taxes, it is not fair by giving tax cuts (or compensation) to all (instead compo only to Labor supporting low income households), it invites rent seeking and corruption, with the ALP/Unions
choosing which industries and companies get compo (Howard gave it all away to the States) and it is a job killing tax by damaging our competitiveness by only applying to goods produced in Australia.
Once people realise the Carbon Tax is LABOR’S GST FOR DUMMIES, it and the ALP will die a quick political death.
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2009 the Utility giant American Electric Power (AEP) applied to the US government for $334 million in stimulus money to construct the world’s first commercial scale CO2 capture and storage project at a West Virginia coal-fired power plant. The project was expected to cost about US$670million and begin operation in 2015 – MAYBE.

The project goal is to capture 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per year and then to store it 1.5 miles below the surface.
The scale of this CO2 removal by 2020 is almost exactly the same as that planned by Julia Gillard for the whole of Australia. How much of a difference in atmospheric CO2 levels will this make and what will it cost?

Atmospheric CO2 accumulation from this US power plant is the product its emissions (0.0015 billion metric tonnes of CO2) times CO2’s persistence in the atmosphere (estimated by the IPCC to be 40% over the period),which equals 0.0006 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per annum.

Since 1 part per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2 in the atmosphere weighs about 7.81 billion metric tonnes, the atmospheric persistence of the plant’s emissions is roughly 0.0006/ 7.81, which equals an increase of about 0.0001 ppmv.

So US$670 million will be paid by US taxpayers and electricity users to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 levels by 0.0001 ppmv per year. That’s roughly US$7trillion per ppm CO2 avoided.
(The atmosphere carries about 390ppm of CO2 at the moment)

If the project started burying CO2 in 2015 as planned, if the IPCC’s calculations are correct, if all other sources magically ceased, then between 2015 and 2100 the atmosphere would contain about about 0.0085 ppmv less CO2 (85 years x 0.0001 ppmv per year).

Julia plans to spend much more than US$670million so our cost per ppm avoided will be much much higher.

Together with our Green fanatics this woman will waste billions for absolutely no result whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sat 09 Jul 11 (02:11pm)

It is good to see Australia join an international effort to reduce the globes emissions.

What’s the matter Adam, don’t you own a calculator?

Hit the numbers, even if ALL the nations of the planet joined Australia in reducing CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020, it’ll make diddly squat difference to global temperatures. One doesn’t need to be a scientist to work a calculator.

The UN and it’s IPCC knows this, yet continues to push the party line. If that doesn’t tell you that the whole AGW meme is a scam, nothing will and I have a bridge I want to sell you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 95% of global CO2 emissions are by Mother nature, i.e. only 5% is by man.
Of this 5%, half is sequestered by nature, of the remaining half, Australia is responsible for 1.5% of it, that is, of the CO2 that (supposedly) remains in the atmosphere to cause dangerous warming, Australia is responsible for 0.000375%

Gillard wants to cut the above figure by 5%, i.e. 0.0000187%.

How many tens of billions of our hard earned is this foolish woman going to spend for the above pimple on a bees dick sized problem?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The tax on carbon dioxide has been tarted up as a “free introductory offer” in the full knowledge that once it is passed it will be there forever as a funding mechanism (under a socialist Labor/green government) for all the craziest social experimentation one could ever imagine.

Of course when all the coal-fired power stations have shut down, all coal mining has been phased out, and Australia is looking like a South Pacific version of Greece, will Labor and the Greens say SORRY?

Hopefully Gillard and her pathetic mob of economy wreckers will be gone and the carbon dioxide, mining tax and all the other unnecesary taxes gone with them.

And I hope the Greens are finished forever - never to return to destroy our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am now however totally confused since we all know that the “Carbon Tax” will not achieve any environmental benefit and we thought it was just a tax grab to balance the budget. With it actually having a negative impact on the budget what is the govt really trying to achieve? Is there some other Agenda or have they just plain
snookered themselves and kicked an own goal.

If they are so pig headed that they must persist with this farce then the only outcomes I can see happening are
1) they just abandon all the “compensation” thus creating another massive LIE.
2) They abandon the thought of a budget surplus
3) they include all fuels including ‘Petrol”
4) they raise the level of tax

and in any case they will be unceremoniously dumped at the next election which can’t come soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
in one year 800gigatons c02
in one year 160 gigatons plant/sea..etc
in ................ 8 gigatons by man alone...ipccc statement

reduce by 160 MILLION tonnes by 2020...mmmm jg says

and finally “termites produce c02 emissions many more times all the factories and automobiles of the world..Science ,Nov 5 1982”

junk science peddled by jg-c02 is not a pollutant-nor does it heat the planet...no need to do anything....
-------------------------------------------------------
i only offer to point out absurd assumption that increase in measured c02 may not BE MANMADE........hallo

why does everyone think that ..oops..there goes a mmc02 molecule..look overthere a natural one....ooops a termite label on this one...look a volcanic one ...

who told you the increase of c02 is manmade and not natural expression of this planets existance..oopsthe ipcc

told us so…
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In December, another alphabet soup congregation on climate change will meet in Durban, South Africa to discuss efforts to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Durban may be a fine city. But if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wants a dose of reality regarding carbon emissions, it should convene in
Hanoi.

The reason: over the past decade, Vietnam's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 136%. That's faster than any other country on the planet. And Vietnam's explosive growth looks like it will continue for years to come. Indeed, the country where some 58,000 US soldiers died stands as a proxy for many of the countries in the developing
world. And as those countries grow their economies, their energy use, and their carbon dioxide emissions, the hope for any hard cap -- or tax -- on carbon becomes ever more remote.

To be sure, Vietnam's energy use is a tiny fraction of that used by countries like China and the US. In 2010, Vietnam's 90 million inhabitants consumed about 900,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. That's a rounding error when compared to China's consumption of nearly 49 million barrels of oil equivalent per day or US consumption of nearly 46 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Even South Africa, which has about half as many people as Vietnam, consumes nearly 2.5 times as much energy.

But the latest data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, released last month, shows that Vietnam's huge appetite for energy is part of an ongoing surge in the developing world to escape energy poverty.

Vietnam represents a whole class of fast-growing, populous countries where energy use is growing ferociously and that's resulting in more carbon dioxide emissions -- 33.1 trillion tons in 2010 alone, an increase of 28% over 2001 numbers.

Whether the issue is oil use, coal consumption, or electricity generation, the numbers out of Vietnam are stunning. Over the past decade, Vietnam's oil use jumped by about 82%, following only Qatar (202%) and China (86%). Vietnam's coal use has grown faster than any other country. Over the past decade, coal consumption in
Vietnam jumped by 175%, outstripping the percentage growth in Indonesia (134%) and China (128%). And nearly all of that coal is being used to produce electrons.

Over the past decade, Vietnam's electricity generation increased by a whopping 227%, the fastest growth on the planet. Again, the total amount of electricity used in Vietnam -- about 100 terawatt-hours -- remains miniscule when compared to US consumption of 4,326 terawatt-hours. But the essentiality of electricity to modernity is incontrovertible. The countries that can produce cheap, abundant, reliable electricity can grow their economies, educate their citizens and pull their people out of poverty. And those that can't, can't. And that's why all of the past -- and all of the future -- meetings of the UNFCCC have and will result in failure to put a hard cap or effective tax on global carbon dioxide: the developing countries know that limiting their access to hydrocarbons will necessarily retard the growth of their economies.

Look at Asia. Even if we forget for a moment about the 2.1 billion people living in China and India, we can see countries like Indonesia, where electricity generation has increased by nearly 64% over the past decade. Or consider Thailand, where electricity use has jumped by 55%. Or consider Egypt, where electricity use is up 79%.

That has meant big increases in carbon dioxide emissions. Over the past decade, Indonesia's carbon dioxide emissions increased by 40%, Thailand's jumped by 51% and Egypt's grew by 53%.

Need another reason for why the just-five-months-away climate meeting in Durban will fail just as all of its predecessors have failed? Coal use is soaring. Over the past decade, global coal use is up 47%. That's faster growth than what was seen in electricity generation (up 36%), natural gas use (up 30%), and oil consumption (up
13%). Environmentalists around the world love to vilify coal. But for countries like Vietnam, Pakistan, China, and others, coal keeps the lights on. That's certainly true here in the US, but over the past decade, domestic coal consumption has fallen by 5%.

Thus far, I've given you a lot of percentages. But focus, please, on these two: 27% and 28%. Since 2001, global energy use is up by 27% and carbon dioxide emissions are up 28%. Put another way, over the last decade, global energy use increased by about 51 million barrels of oil equivalent per day; that's equal to about six Saudi
Arabias' worth of daily oil output. Energy use is soaring as more people from Hanoi to Hangzhou move into the modern world. And that means that huge cuts in carbon dioxide emissions -- by 80%, as Obama claims the US must -- simply will not happen.

Like it or not, the world economy runs on hydrocarbons -- coal, oil, and natural gas. And that will remain true for many decades to come. Energy transitions happen over decades or centuries, not years. Countries like Vietnam, China, and India, will never agree to any tax or limit on carbon dioxide. Nor does it make much sense at all to impose heavy levies on the US, and other developed countries. Why? Well, over the last decade, US carbon dioxide emissions fell -- by 1.7%.

Every once in a while, we need to focus on the numbers and put aside the hype. The scale of current global energy use -- about 241 million barrels of oil equivalent per day -- is the same as 28 Saudi Arabias of energy production. The great cities of the world, whether it's Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, or Durban, run on highly processed forms of energy: electricity, ultra-low-sulfur motor fuel, and natural gas. And they need lots of it.

Global leaders should give up their fixation on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Significant cuts will not happen voluntarily anywhere. Instead, leaders should be focusing on providing as much cheap, abundant, dispatchable power to their citizens as possible. And to make certain political leaders understand the need to eradicate energy poverty, the UNFCCC should hold its next meeting in Hanoi.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

fort said...

Climate change came early last night when minus 2 degrees was some how not what I expected from the government or their green weather forecasters and No I do not want to pay extra taxes,so the greens and labor can promise something else which does not come true, what a con, fraud to some, but then there are some who will go along
with this con and see what is in it for them. The ABC in Brisbane then reported this news briefly and then went on to celebrate, what a wonderfully sunny day we can expect! And,the heat turns down in Tropical Darwin as well,What timing! Hyper - Hypocrasy in spades.

The weather bureau says Darwin residents are experiencing the coldest June on record.

Senior forecaster Graeme King says minimum temperatures have dropped into the teens every day this month.

"It has been a great start to the dry season," he said.

"It is the coolest June ever recorded in Darwin.

"We have now had 42 nights in a row below 20 degrees Celsius.

"To put that in context, last dry season we only had 20 [nights] for the whole season."

About 85 per cent of weather stations across the Northern Territory recorded their coldest June on record.

Overnight temperatures north of Alice Springs have been between 4C and 6C below average.

Maximum daytime temperatures have hovered around the 27C to 30C mark.

The next record in weather watchers' sights still has almost two weeks to go.

The longest big chill-out in the Top End capital is 54 consecutive nights below 20C, set in the 1960s.

- ABC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mad as hell said...

This is nothing but a money making SCAM for the communist one world government aficionados (Bob Brown wants it)

In Europe there is wide spread greed and corruption and the benefit to the environment? ballpark zero in terms of 'climate Change', the convenient vehicle. I am mad as hell and will probably bring up my breakfast with the lot at my local tomorrow morning. What a pleasant experience that will be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know this is a tax grab. However, we will find that it is not so much of a grab as a grope. Jullia Gillard says that it will bring in $11 bln.

Now let us list how this $11 bln will be spent -
55% to the needy = $5.5 bln leaves $4.5 bln
$1 bln to United Nations " $3.5 bln
Compensation to some industries unknown
Operating cost of complex system
depends on how much you earn, how
many children you have. etc.
More bureaucrats, offices etc. unknown
Easily rorted

NOTHING LEFT yet Julia plans to spend $3bln on renewables - where from?

The cry will be "sorry we have run out of money - no more compensation." And how can any details be worked out when as Julia said the tonnage price will go up and down.

Just how much has been wasted already on this ideological dream that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Her words are that by 2020 16 mln tonnes of carbon dioxide will be saved from polluting the atmosphere. And then there will be 16 blns of plants and trees gone for lack of food.

Australia could become a wasteland.There will be a big shock coming when as NASA and thousands of other well known scientists predict that a maunder effect (cooling) is on its way. This is the most ridiculous wasteful policy ever invented by man. And
it is not being enforced on the citizens of the most industrial nations - China, India, USA and rejected by Canada Japan and even recently France.

Julia Gillard is showing her real socialist colours in proposing such a tax that will do absolutely NOTHING to stop the changing climate which has been with us since day Saving the planet??? Julia Gillard, and all men are as grains of sand on the seashore and Julia Gillard should wake up to this before all Australians wake up to
find themselves in deep trouble with our economic future in doubt especially as a GFC2 is predicted in the not-too-distant future. We cannot afford to lose our trade as our debt is enormous and will be even so with this tax and another GFC.
Wake up Austrllians before it is TOO LATE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes is all this government thinks about. How can we squeeze more money out of the hardworking taxpaying citizens of this country. They are the backbone of our economy and if the spine is broken so will the body.

This seems the object of the labor/Greens.

Where is the transparency promised by Julia Gillard. We don't know how the flood tax has been spent. We do not know how much all this travel and living it up costs. We do not know the costs of the illegal immigrants debarcle, the pink batts debarcle, the BER debarcle and the cost so far of this iniquitous carbon tax, the inquiries, commissions, "watches", $900 to dead people and people overseas, pets, etc. and the debarcles go on and on. The waste this government has incurred has never before seen in the history of this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People are now realizing that they tossed out the best government we had in decades under Howard. Be assured they won't make the same mistake twice as they size up your red headed liar and her equally traitorous sidekicks. The three Amigoes are dead men walking. Under her leadership democracy had been sidelined and trampled. Not one Australian voted for this TAX - the cow has no mandate to plunge this country into
unchartered waters and jeopardize this countries economy, and ruin peoples lives. How arrogant and smug she was on TV tonight........one word: SICKENING!
=------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this story the "Climate Institute" say the tax could be as small as $2.45 per week. If so, why all the resistance to this measly sum, If only it were true. A carbon tax on fuel alone will amount to between 5 and 8 cents per litre and we all know when you put a tax on fuel then you also raise the price of everything we use, eat, wear, watch, drive, sit on and live in, nothing will be spared and this is before we are bent over by the power companies.

Compensation promises will not be sufficient and they will not last and the price per ton will not stay at the introductory level. This PM has shown she is not concerned about lying to the Australian people and we should remember this when details are finally revealed. Until the worlds major emitters commit to engage in this issue we are doing nothing more than engaging in national self flagellation with no hope of changing anything and they know it. Also what happens to the other 50% of the tax that Juliar says she is giving back in compensation, there never seems to be anything said about that Are they serious, do they honestly expect people to believe that Juliar can save the planet by taxing us all only $2.45 per week
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a lot of bullshit Gillard tells, she must be living in disneyland. Her arguement goes like this;

if an industry doesen't stop carbon polluting the atmosphere, they will be fined [ doesn't that happen anyway ?] but her idea is to tax ALL carbon pollution with increased tax for increased pollution, thus industry will think smart and find ways to reduce their pollution. God save us all from people who think they are living in
utopia.

Most of the, so called, carbon is emmited by power companies. There is no way on earth that these companies are going to suddenly find other ways to generate base load power from coal fired power stations that use coal. Since the world runs on electricity, the only option is ignore the tax, pay it and pass the tax to consumers, who MUST run on electricty.

If I was PM, the first binding federal law I would pass would be that:today, electricity is classed as an essential for life and the country's stability.So all electrical power shall never be intentionally disconnected because of financial concerns either by the supplier or the reciever of that power to maintain their standard of living. In other words, make it a CRIMINAL offence to disconnect
electricty under any and all circumstances, to a reciever of that electricity which would otherwise cause irreprable harm.

Actually I thought that this law was already in place since electricty is classed as the TOP essential services. You don't see councils disconnecting water supply if you don't pay your water bill; they simple sue you for the money or reposses non essential items to pay for the bill. In the worst case scenario [ which I have yet to hear of ] they simple take a lein on your property to pay for the bill later at exhorbatent interest rates. 2 things are classed as essential for 'life' in our western civilisation.

Number one is electricty, number two is water. Without these items you simple cannot live. So you think that the coal fired power industry is going to magically find a way of cutting 'carbon' from the generating stations ?.

Coal is nearly pure carbon and if you can find a way of making it disappear after it's fired, you have just done what Einstien couldn't do; you get the nobel science prize.

How can any sane person believe this bullshit ?

The electricity suppliers have NO OPTION on the planet but to pass on the tax to consumers and I'm talking about hikes of up to 400% in the next 4 years. People will just give up, live like paupers in their own houses but instead of a morgage, they will be burdened with electricity bills which soar out of sight.

total and unmitigated madness of the first order.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------