Tuesday, June 28, 2011

NASA scientist reverses sunspot prediction, bolstering global cooling theory Friday, June 17th 2011, 3:28 AM EDT


Five years ago, NASA’s David Hathaway, one of the world’s leading authorities on the solar cycle, predicted that the Sun was about to enter an unusually intense period of sunspot activity. Referring to Solar Cycle 24, the 11-year period that we’re now in, Hathaway predicted that it “looks like it’s going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”

Because sunspot activity has historically predicted periods of global warming and global cooling – lots of sunspots translates into lots of warming and vice versa – Hathaway’s study – presented at a December 2006 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco — acted to support global warming theorists and to discredit the various solar scientists who believe that Earth is about to enter a prolonged period of cooling.

Today, Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believes his earlier prediction was wrong. Rather than hitting a peak of 160 sunspots, and possibly 185, as he predicted in 2006, he now believes that the Sun’s activity will decline dramatically. The current prediction, to less than half that of 2006, “would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years,” he now states.All this comes amid a flurry of other reports, including from scientists at the U.S. National Solar Observatory (NSO) and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, indicating that global cooling, and perhaps even a new Little Ice Age, is on its way.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it,” states Frank Hill of the U.S. National Solar Observatory, who recently co-authored another paper in the field. “This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

The upshot is chilling: “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill states. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

The notion of another Little Ice Age, as happened in the last half of the 1600s, is no longer dismissed. Asks the National Solar Observatory: “An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.”

To see the historic number of sunspots, including the number during the Little Ice Age in the mid 1600s, click here.

To see Hathaway’s new, dramatically lowered prediction, click here.

June 28, 2011 Are Midwest Floods Caused by Global Warming or Radical Environmentalists?




Many Global Warming Alarmists are pointing to the floods in the Midwest as the latest proof of global warming. But a powerful piece at AmericanThinker.com provides an alternative suggestion as to the real cause of the flooding: the perhaps unintended consequences of radical environmentalist policies regarding the system of dams on the Missouri River.

Al Gore gave a speech in New York last week in which he linked the flooding in the Midwest and the fires in Arizona to global warming: “Today, the biggest fire in the history of the state of Arizona is spreading to New Mexico. Today, the biggest flood in the history of the Mississippi River Valley is under way right now,” Gore said. “At what point is there a moment where we say, ‘Oh, we ought to do something about this?’”



One of Gore’s dimmer acolytes, Bill Maher, took up the issue on his show on HBO, “Real Time with Bill Maher.” Maher seemed to be hooked up to a machine that gave him a shock every time he uttered the words “global warming,” which he repeatedly did, before, in each case, correcting himself to say “climate change.” He said, "I don't call it global warming anymore because that is bad. It is climate change." Maher finally got it out, sort of, and asked, “Why doesn't he [Obama] point to this and say this is all because of climate change. He doesn't seem to use what he has to make a case.”



But in the article, “The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland,” in American Thinker, Joe Herring makes a very strong, well documented case, that the system of dams built in the area to tame the Missouri River and prevent this sort of thing from happening was well conceived and executed: “Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river’s devastating floods.”

But in the 1990s the plan was hijacked by radical environmentalists with a different agenda: “The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.”

Herring cites Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD, who told the Seattle Times that “this event will leave the river in a ‘much more natural state than it has seen in decades,’ describing the epic flooding as a ‘prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species.’”

Herring also documents that, through a series of emails last February, “Ft. Pierre SD Director of Public Works Brad Lawrence sounded the alarm loud and clear,” but the alarm of this “flood of biblical proportions” was not heeded. Why don’t the mainstream media follow up on Mr. Herring’s findings?

For people looking for some straight talk about global warming from some actual scientists who aren’t part of that consensus we’re always hearing about, I recommend The Heartland Institute’s conference this Thursday and Friday, which will be webcast here. This will demonstrate why Maher, and Gore and the other alarmists prefer to call it “climate change,” and not “global warming.” The evidence doesn’t support the warming theory. One of the participants will be Australian scientist Bob Carter, who recently pointed out that “Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions are not driving dangerous warming.”

Chinese mine giant snaps up 43 NSW farms | The Australian

MORE CARBON TAX LIES FROM JULIA GILLARD THE GILLARD GOVERNMENT CLAIM THE CARBON TAX IS TO REPLACE DIRTY ENERGY WITH GREEN ENERGY BUT SHE IS ALLOWING CHINA MINING GIANTS TO PURCHASE ALL OUR LAND FOR NEW COAL MINES >> GO FIGURE!
Chinese mine giant snaps up 43 NSW farms | The Australian

Sunday, June 19, 2011

When it comes to climate science, peer-review is a joke!


Peer Review And ‘Pal Review’ In Climate Science

Patrick-Michaels
When it comes to climate science, peer-review is a joke, writes Dr Patrick Michaels:
Publishing in the scientific literature is supposed to be tough.  Submit a manuscript to a reputable journal and it will go through “peer review,” where your equals criticize your work, send their comments to a journal editor and then the editor will decide whether to accept your submission, reject it outright, or something in between.
In order to limit any bias caused by personal or philosophical animosity, the editor should remove your name from the paper and send it to other experts who have no apparent conflict of interest in reviewing your work.  You and the reviewers should not know who each other are. This is called a “double blind” peer review.
Well, this is “the way it is supposed to be.” But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that.
There is simply no “double blindness.”  For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors’ names on the manuscripts sent out for review.
Economists, psychologists and historians of science all tell us (and I am inclined to believe them) that we act within our rational self-interest. Removing the double-blind restriction in such an environment is an invitation for science abuse.
What about if my professional advancement is dependent upon climate change monies (which applies to just about every academic or government climatologist)? I’m liable to really like a paper that says this is a horrible and important problem, and likely to rail against an author who says it’s probably a bit overblown.  May God have mercy on any manuscript that mentions the rather large elephant in the room, which is that we probably can’t do much about it anyway.
Such “confirmation bias” has been noted and studied for years, but the response of science in general — and atmospheric science in particular — has only been to make things worse.
Peer review has become ”pal review.”  Send a paper to one of the very many journals published by the American Geophysical Union–the world’s largest publisher of academic climate science–and you can suggest five reviewers.  The editor doesn’t have to take your advice, but he’s more likely to if you bought him dinner at the last AGU meeting, isn’t he? That is, of course, unless journal editors are somehow different than government officials, congressmen, or you.
Or, if you get wind that someone is about to publish something threatening your gravy train, maybe you can cajole the editor to keep it out of print for a year while you prepare a counter-manuscript.
That’s what the “Climategate” gang did with the International Journal of Climatology when University of Rochester’s David Douglass submitted a paper.  His work showed that a large warming at high altitudes in the tropics–one of the major ways in which the enhanced greenhouse effect is supposed to change the climate–isn’t happening. For the gory details,click here.  The story on this one is still unfolding as the journal has declined to publish a sequel to the counter-manuscript.
Or you could simply ignore manuscripts sent to you that find problems with temperature histories.
But there has to be a gold standard somewhere, right?  Perhaps theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)?
Dream on. If you are a member of the National Academy, you can submit four manuscripts a year, called “contributed papers” as long as you do the “peer review” yourself!  That’s right: you send your manuscript to two of your friends, and then mail your paper along with their comments.  Again, pal review.
The PNAS editor then rubber-stamps the results.  In fact, the editor probably goes through quite a few rubber stamps a year, given that only 15 of the 800-odd contributed papers submitted in the last year were rejected.  For comparative purposes, Nature would have accepted only about 50 out of that number.
A recent paper submitted to PNAS by National Academy member Richard Lindzen was afforded special treatment.  The editor insisted that it be held to a different standard of review because of its “political implications.” Lindzen’s research found that carbon dioxide warming is likely to be much lower than what is being calculated by current climate models.
So what about the legion of alarmist papers from NASA firebrand James Hansen that PNAS publishes via pal review?  Don’t they have “political implications” too?  In the mind of our National Academy, apparently some political implications are more equal than others.
There’s a lot of confirmation bias working in Hansen’s favor, because it’s back to the back of the plane for ham-and-egger climate scientists if Lindzen is right. That’s where the “political implications” get personal.
There’s a lot more to this story. Lindzen eventually published his paper–which actually benefited from a real review–in an obscure journal.  But the next time you think that peer review is unbiased, think of confirmation bias, pal review and Climategate, and try to figure a way out of the mess that climate science has gotten itself into.
Patrick J. Michaels is Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute and author of  “Climate of Extremes:  Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know’. Origially published at Forbes.com, and reproduced with permission.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved !

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.











Polar bears will be fine after all .

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted

Monday, June 13, 2011

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.

www.gopetition.com
We, the undersigned, call on the Australian Government to listen to the people of Australia and we demand that No Carbon tax be implemented.As per your promise Prime Minister Julia Gillard.It is not in the best interest for us,and will do nothing for our environment or address climate change issue's

CARBON PRICE - TOP LINES Key Facts.


An analysis of the strategy paper
Statements in bold italics are allegations (numbered by us) from the strategy paper; our responses are in ordinary typeface:

CARBON PRICE - TOP LINES
Key Facts

1a. We believe climate change is real ……..
Climate change is real and continuous. 20,000 years ago present day New York was under a kilometre of ice and lower sea levels meant that early Australians were able to walk to Tasmania; and just 300 years ago, during the “Little Ice Age”, the world was again significantly colder than today.
 Australians who witnessed the 2009 Victorian bushfires or this year’s Queensland floods and cyclones need no reminder that hazardous climate events and change are real. That is not the issue.
The issue is that use of the term “climate change” here is code for “dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions”. The relevant facts are:
(i) that mild warming of a few tenths of a degree of warming occurred in the late 20th century, but that so far this century global temperature has not risen; and
(ii) that no direct evidence, as opposed to speculative computer projections, exists to demonstrate that the late 20th century warming was dominantly, or even measurably, caused by human-sourced carbon dioxide emissions.

1b. …… and taking action is the right thing to do.
The primary action that is needed should not be controversial.
It is to combat and adapt to hazardous climatic events and trends (whether natural or human-caused) as and when they happen. Of course, the required activities should be undertaken within a framework of careful cost:benefit analysis.
Spending billions of dollars on a penal carbon dioxide tax fails the cost:benefit test. Such a measure acts only to reduce Australia’s wealth, and therefore our capacity to address the real-world problems of natural climate change and hazard.

2. We want the top 1,000 biggest polluting companies to pay for each tonne of carbon (sic) pollution they produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet. If carbon dioxide were to drop to a third of current levels, most plant life on the planet, followed by animal life, would die.
As Ross Garnaut recognises, all businesses, including even the corner shop, are going to be paying for carbon dioxide emissions. In the long run, businesses must pass on the tax to their customers and ultimately the cost will fall on individual consumers.
A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users. This will initially impact on the costs of all businesses, and energy-intensive industries in particular will lose international competitiveness.
The so-called “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Ultimately, any cost impost on them will either be passed on to consumers or will result in the disappearance of the activities, with accompanying direct and indirect employment.

3. A carbon price will provide incentives for the big polluters to reduce their carbon pollution.
All companies must pass on their costs to consumers, or go bankrupt. A price on carbon dioxide will encourage firms to reduce emissions, but their ability to do so is limited. 
The owners of fossil fuelled electricity power stations that are unable to pass on the full cost of a carbon dioxide tax will see lower profits, and the stations with the highest emission levels will be forced to close prematurely. If investors expect the tax to be permanent, power stations with higher emissions will be replaced by power stations with lower emissions whose lower carbon dioxide taxes enable them to undercut the tax-enhanced cost of the established firms. The higher cost replacement generators will set a higher price for all electricity. 
Alternatively, if investors lack confidence that the tax will be permanent, the new more expensive, lower emissions power stations may be perceived as too risky to attract investment. This will cause a progressive deterioration in the system’s ability to meet demand.

4. Australia is the worst per head carbon emitter in the developed world.
This statement is untrue.
According the latest UN Human Development Report, Australia emits 18 tonnes per capita of carbon dioxide. Other countries with high emissions include Luxemburg (24.5 tonnes), the US (19 tonnes), the UAE (32.8 tonnes), Qatar (56.2 tonnes), and Kuwait (31.2 tonnes).   Australia’s emissions are higher than those of many other countries largely because we have cheap coal, little hydro-electric potential, and have banned nuclear power. 
Low energy costs allow Australia, unlike other developed countries, to export products like aluminium whose production incorporates high carbon dioxide emissions. Most other developed countries import these products, effectively our-sourcing their emissions but not reducing them. 
Importantly, countries are not better or worse emitters. Countries’ levels of emissions depend on their geographical and industrial structure and their living standards rather than any policy decisions their governments may have taken on carbon dioxide emissions.    

5. Other countries are taking action, even China and India. Australia must make a start or our economy will be left behind.
Although several European countries have created conditions that force or encourage electricity producers to invest heavily in wind/solar, these high cost sources of electricity comprise a greater share of total output in Australia than in most other countries. Compared to the share in Australia of 1.5 per cent, the US obtains 0.8 per cent from these sources, Japan 0.4 per cent, China 0.5 per cent and India 1.7 per cent (sources: ESAA, EIA, IEA).
Australia has a Mandatory Renewable Energy Tariff (MRET) which requires that 20% of electricity is to be generated by renewables by 2020. Because renewable sources such as wind and solar are uncompetitive, by 2020 MRET will impose a tax equivalent to $14 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. Though these subsidy measures have often been trumpeted as promoting new Australian technologies, none have materialised. Nor are they likely to do so in the future, but in any event Australia cannot be left behind technologically, because if any practical research breakthroughs occur these will become available in all countries
More broadly, any expectation of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings, and the world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide taxation or emissions trading. The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, and though a dozen US states had previously committed to anti-carbon dioxide schemes some of those (e.g. New Hampshire and New Mexico) are now withdrawing from the schemes.
Contrary to assertions, neither China nor India is taking substantive action specifically to mitigate their carbon dioxide emission level. China has already surpassed the level of per capita emissions said to be necessary to stabilise atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. In both countries, nuclear power and efficient coal-fired electricity generators are being embraced, but these choices are directed at energy supply efficiency not carbon dioxide emissions. Minister Combet has claimed that India has a form of carbon tax, but that “tax” is actually an environmental levy on coal mining at about $1 per tonne, which is similar to long standing levies faced by coal mining in Australia. 
China and India together deliberately undermined the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009. Both countries refuse to commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, other than that the carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP will progressively decline as their electricity generators are increasingly modernised and their economies develop. As in Australia, there are many voices in both countries rejecting theories of man-made global warming[1].

6. We will protect existing jobs while creating new clean energy jobs.
The whole point of a carbon dioxide tax is to force coal-fired power stations out of existence. No amount of subsidy will “protect” the jobs of the workers involved.
It has been shown that in Spain, 2.2 conventional jobs are destroyed for every new job created in the alternative energy industry, at a unit cost of about US$774,000/job. In a comparable UK study the figures were even worse, with the destruction of 3.7 conventional jobs for every 1 new job.

7. Every cent raised by the carbon (sic) price will go to households, protecting jobs in businesses in transition and investment in climate change programs. There will be generous assistance to households, families and pensioners (tax cuts are a live option).
As with any tax, the proceeds are returned to the community. One part of this, perhaps 20 per cent or so, is required to administer the program and is a deadweight loss. The rest is a redirection of funding to areas that the government considers to be more productive, or more politically supportive. The effect of this invariably leads to a loss of efficiency within the economy and to a slower growth rate.  
It is also the case that introduction of a new tax generally results in unanticipated costs, which, because they are unknown, taxpayers cannot be compensated for.

CLIMATE IMPACT ON AUSTRALIA

8. We have to act now to avoid the devastating consequences of climate change.
Of itself carbon dioxide, even at concentrations tenfold those of the present, is not harmful to humans. Projections usually assume a doubling of emissions and associate this with an increase in global temperatures. 
There is no “climate emergency”, and nor did devastating consequences result from the mild warming of the late 20th century. Global average temperature, which peaked in the strong El Nino year of 1998, still falls well within the bounds of natural climate variation. Current global temperatures are in no way unusually warm, or cold, in terms of Earth’s recent geological history.

9. If we don’t act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts, we will have more days of extreme heat, and we will see our coastline flooded as sea levels rise.
These alarmist statements are based exclusively on a naïve faith that computer models can make predictions about future climate states. That faith cannot be justified, as even the modelling practitioners themselves concede.
The computer models that have yielded the speculative projections quoted in the strategy paper are derived from organisations like CSIRO, which includes the following disclaimer at the front of all its computer modelling consultancy reports:
This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood.
Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.

10. This [human-caused climate impact] will hurt Australia’s industries, jobs, our infrastructure and our way of life.
[This statement is fleshed out with a further page of unvalidated computer projections of a future that will be characterised by more extreme hot days, a higher bushfire risk, enhanced sea level rise, an increased frequency of drought and an increased, negative climate-event impact on tourist icons such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Victorian ski fields.]
All these claims are speculative, and the accuracy of the computer models involved can be judged from the following graph and its explanation. 
US government climate scientists started the global warming scare in 1988 when they provided this forecast to a committee hearing in the US Congress. The actual observed temperature that eventuated later has been superimposed on the model projections in red.
The three black prediction lines are for three scenarios:
A.  Carbon dioxide levels grow exponentially (top line, solid).
B.  Carbon dioxide levels grow linearly (middle line, dashed).
C.  Carbon dioxide emissions cut back so atmospheric CO2 stopped going up by 2000 (bottom line, dotted).
The carbon dioxide levels that occurred in reality were almost exactly those in scenario A, so it is the topmost line that is the relevant forecast.

Obviously the planet's temperature (red line) hasn't increased nearly as much as was forecast by the computer models. After the temperature peak in 1998 (a strong El Nino year), the temperature has levelled off and is now gently declining. The red overprinted temperature is only plotted up to the beginning of 2010, but after a temporary peak in 2010 (below the 1998 peak) temperature has again declined, and is now lower than at the beginning of 2010
The claims in the strategy paper that we have to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions immediately or dangerous warming will occur, with manifold dramatic environmental consequences, are based on faulty computer models that are unchanged in basic character from those that have proved to be inaccurate since 1988.

THE ALL IMPORTANT DATA
In the real world, over the last ten years, and despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide:
Global temperature has declined slightly (Liljegren, 2011)
Ocean heat content has declined slightly (Knox & Douglass, 2011); and
Global sea-level rise has remained stable, with no net acceleration (Houston & Dean, 2011)
In addition:
Tropical storm energy shows no upward trend, and is near its lowest since records began in 1977 (Maue, 2011);
The number of cyclones in northern Australia has declined since the 1970s (BOM, 2011); seven times as many extreme tropical storms traversed north Queensland and the GBR between 1600 and 1800 as occurred between 1800 and 2000 (Nott et al., 2007).
No evidence exists that current Australian climatic phenomena - including droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and snow storms – differ now in intensity or frequency from their historic natural patterns of strong annual and multi-decadal variability; and
Tourists continue to flock to a Great Barrier Reef that (outside of very local resort areas) remains in the same excellent natural health that Captain James Cook observed in 1770.
                                                                                                                                                   

The headline-seeking, adverse environmental outcomes that are highlighted in the strategy paper are therefore as inaccurate and exaggerated as were Hansen’s 1988 temperature projections.
There is no global warming crisis, and model-based alarmist projections of the type that permeate the strategy paper are individually and severally unsuitable for use in public policy making. 


10 top reasons why Carbon Tax is wrong and utterly pointless.



....It is a green ideological tax for social engineering under the guise of dangerous climate change. It is unnecessary, ineffective, and hugely damaging to Australian families and our industry.....

1. Deceitful: Julia Gillard pledged before the election to not introduce a Carbon Tax. Our government must not be allowed to contemptuously disregard key pre-election pledges to not introduce contentious revolutionary schemes, if elections are to have any meaning.

2. Misleading: The Carbon Tax or Pollution Tax is a tax on a pure gas, carbon dioxide or CO2, not carbon soot or general pollution, as dishonestly implied by these terms. CO2 is not pollution and does not need to be reduced in the first place, it is a natural trace gas we all exhale and is needed by plants to grow, notwithstanding its greenhouse effect.

3. Unnecessary: Fear of dangerous Global Warming from man-made CO2 is dissipating with more recent scientific evidence and exposure of much bias, exaggeration of dangers and neglect of benefits of warming in existing scientific consensus. Any warming from CO2 is likely to be a harmless < 1 Deg Celsius by 2100. Higher predictions are only computer model speculations, arguably due to the modeller’s confessed ignorance of natural climate cycles.

4. Obsolete: Most big countries are retreating from carbon pricing and from the many ineffective and expensive green schemes. These schemes have not even achieved net CO2 reductions, nor created net green jobs or economic benefits as claimed by proponents (Spain, Germany, USA etc).

5. Isolated: Big emitter countries such as China, Japan and USA have decided against renewing the Kyoto Protocol or significantly cutting their CO2, despite greenwash projects. Australia’s isolated sacrifice is thus utterly pointless.

6. Worthless: Even if CO2 were dangerous and we reduced it successfully in Australia or even globally, there is no physical evidence that it would have a significantly beneficial effect on climate.

7. Ineffective: Economists predict that a carbon price in Australia will just move carbon emissions to the other countries with smaller or no carbon price, especially as we export ever more coal to be burned elsewhere, termed ‘carbon leak’; this is what happened in Europe under Kyoto protocol.

8. Disingenuous: If Greens really believed a Climate catastrophe was approaching, they would surely concede to the lesser evil of building more dams and more nuclear plants. In fact, theirs is a primarily political agenda.

9. Damaging: After Labor’s record of green and general disasters of insulation bats, solar rebates, cash for clunkers, green loans, BER, Hospitals and NBN, it is optimistic in the extreme to expect anything but a disaster to come out of the complex Carbon Tax.

10. Premature: Conversion to a self-sufficient, renewable energy based economy should happen as technological developments bring efficient solutions, not by forcing gigantic schemes using current inefficient technology with huge public subsidies.

Climate Commission advice is no basis for a carbon tax, four scientists claim | Australian Conservative

The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decades Climate Commission report is an inadequate, flawed and misleading basis on which to set national policy, a scientific audit published this week claims.
The audit undertaken by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth says:
The report is emotive and tendentious throughout, ignores sound scientific criticism of IPCC shibboleths that has been made previously, and is shotgun in its approach and at the same time selective in its use of evidence. The arguments presented depend heavily upon unvalidated computer models the predictions of which have been wrong for the last 23 years, and which are unremittingly and unjustifiably alarmist in nature.
Independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records; and nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.
(Read the Scientific audit of a report from the Climate Commission “The Critical Decade – Climate science, risks and responses May, 2011, at Quadrant Online.)

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Lets get 5000 signatures AUSTRALIAN'S DEMAND AN EARLY ELECTION

Lets get 5000 signatures AUSTRALIAN'S DEMAND AN EARLY ELECTION

Australian People Demand an Early Election Petition

Australian People Demand an Early Election Petition

Pensioners get payment boost under carbon tax - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Pensioners get payment boost under carbon tax - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

A WHOLE $19.00 PER FORTNIGHT WHO ARE THEY FUCKING KIDDING ...SAY NO TO A CARBON TAX

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.PETITION..PLEASE SIGN. Petition

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.PETITION..PLEASE SIGN. Petition

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.

PROGRAMING THE INTERFACE The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin, Controlling the worlds money.


PROGRAMING THE INTERFACE

thetruestorryofthebilderberggroup_book_cover
The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin
Controlling the worlds money is absolutely crucial for with it comes the ultimate dominance of society as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. Amschel Rothschild insightfully once said: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” Is it a coincidence that our Federal Reserves are privately owned along with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, or is this the direct action of a powerful elite? Is it a coincidence that money, pieces of coloured design paper and metal alloy coins reigns more control and dictation over our life than anything else, if we want to eat, wear clothes, groom ourselves or even learn, is it nothing but money that we need? Daniel Estulin(author of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group) has been studying this secret society for over 14 years. Methodically dedicating his energy to infiltrating and finding out everything about the Bilderbergers, he is one of many inquisitive beings who has a wealth of knowledge of this group. The information that Daniel has exposed with regards to the agendas discussed and planned within these meetings has ‘coincidentally’ been proven to be accutely accurate. Daniel in his book points out that not only is the control of money essential, but the control of energy too, i.e. oil, for without energy (oil), money literally loses its value.
David Rockefeller
David Rockefeller
This realization was an early one for the Bilderberg members, and with energy being the lifeblood of money, and society this was obvious as a profitable business to manipulate. Since the early 1970′s, we have seen oil prices progressively rise in an industrialized domineering world. At the 2005 Bilderberg meeting in Munich, Germany, an American Bilderberger expressed concerns to the attended guests about global rising oil prices. What reportedly followed was a representative of an oil cartel, who are regularly invited to these meetings, remarked that growth is not possible without energy, but current indicators show that the energy supply of oil is running out much faster than our world leaders have predicted. He continued on to point out that growth in both population and economy in China and India should be elements also considered when predicting the
available oil sources for world consumption that the Bilderbergers themselves see at lasting for a further 35 years. Although, when revising these predictions using the elements pointed out by this oil insider, it is shocking to learn that our oil supply, which upon full looted consumption will spell the end of the world’s financial system, shows we have a mere 20 years left of supply. In order to bleed as much monetary wealth from the citizens of the world, part of the agenda concluded from the 2005 Bilderberg meeting was to sink the world’s economy into a severe downturn while the Bilderbergers could keep their remaining oil supplies safe by taking money out of the people’s hands. By destroying the economy and sinking the world into a recession, what follows is the people cutting down their spending habits and altering their lifestyle, hence ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world’s rich while they figure out a plan for what to do. Since 2005, we have experienced this economic downturn, we still find our ourselves amidst this monetary crisis with hundreds and thousands of people being put out by losing their jobs, their homes and their comfortable lives they once knew. Governments globally expanding and spending billions to ‘bail out’ each their own economies, while all the while, eroding the civil liberties of individuals, fighting perpetual wars and creating or hiking taxes to pay for a continuous cycle of debt.

Lets get 5000 signatures AUSTRALIAN'S DEMAND AN EARLY ELECTION

Australian People Demand an Early Election ......... SIGN THE PETITION !!!!


http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/australian-people-demand-an-early-election/sign.html


This Labor government is dead in the water. It has lost its way… yet again. Its incompetence and arrogance has led it to be effectively at war with Australia. Its call to class warfare and attempts to divide and conquer Australians in order to enforce incompetent policies have failed.


Citizens, businesses and whole industries are now in unprecedented open revolt against its insane carbon tax, its brainless spendthrift programs and disastrous refugee policies. Labor now trashes our economy and neighbours with one bizarre political quick fix after another. Worst of all, it has no idea how to regroup and get back to governing and has no answers other than to pathologically project all its failings onto Tony Abbott. It no longer listens to it’s citizens and we no longer listen to it. It is now incapable of learning, condemned to repeat their bungling from East Timor to Malaysia, from roof insulation to TV set top boxes.


For it’s own sake and that of Australia, Labor needs to be removed from government and be allowed to disassemble and be reborn again. After all, it is not in our interest for Labor to self-destruct – we need two healthy and vibrant, competing political parties.


SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.FACEBOOK GROUP COME AND JOIN US !!

Saturday, June 11, 2011

COME JOIN US !

Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
040419-N-6027E-002
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.
Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.
Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.
The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
Oh well, back to the old drawing board…

SAY NO! CARBON TAX AUSTRALIA.FACEBOOK GROUP COME AND JOIN US !!