Fantastic result. Amazing how much more info has come out on the sublect of climate change as a result of the leadership spills.
Hopefully everyone can now get over all the BS about the actula "is the climate changing" part of the debate.
Lets now really focus on the real question. "Why is it changing"? My take on it is a thing called NATURE. The world has warmed and cooled many times before (while humans were here and pre human habitation) and will again.

Summing up, yeah OK the climate is changing, lets all get over using the term "global warming". It is a misleading phrase that should be outlawed!!

thank you barnaby, you are one of very few people willing to stop & think. Not much is being said about the plastic 'island' in the north pacific in relation to climate change. It has to be a factor.

I listened to interview earlier in horror, as you expressed the theory that ever since the industrial revolution industry the world has become more efficient and greener, through market forces.Nothing could further from the truth, Business is interested in making profits and it is Government regulation and Laws that have been the only things that has stopped that insatiable urge to make money at the expense of all else.Maybe you should visit some of parts of the world where mining companies have taken all they could ,destroyed the environment then left after making massive profits, leaving countries with massive problems.Ask these people if the free market economy makes good environmental decisions.Please reconsider your position. Regards

Steve

Barnaby : Given time this fraud will fall apart.
But please lay off the nuclear talk - it will not be implemented tomorrow and is an election killer.

Check this out:

The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro's snow melt - used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore - is entirely natural. Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

Methinks Kevin Rudd will become the John Hewson of the Labor Party.

Well, it was one helluva ride this week. I have never been as glued to Apac before! Fantastic effort by the coalition to put the peoples' voices out there loud and clear to defeat the bill.
Great outcome and am now curious what the results from theCopenhagen summit will be.
Tony Abbott in budgie smugglers I can handle. Even you in tights, I could handle. Sure beats seeing a PM eating his ear wax!

Thanks, so much, Barnaby for this great input you have had, and a great result, re energy tax scam!!!! Keep up the great work........We are right behind you.

Barnaby, we all RE-JOYCE that the insidious ETS has been scuppered for the time being. It's nothing but a tax on the average Bruce & Sheila of Australia to allow polluters to continue to pollute.

The Earth naturally warms and cools over time. The sunspots enlarge and contract over time. I don't remember any Charles Dickens novel where they had warm & sunny winters because that's the way things were back then.

We are always told that so and so month was the warmest since 1893 or Sunday was the hottest day since 1923 - were people worried about global warming back then ? I think not.

The polluters should however be told to clean up their act at their own expense not ours.

Every house should be fitted with solar panels which feed into the national grid.

We should fit every house with water tanks.

Whatever happened to Ralph Sarich and his revolutionary engines ? Since he was bought out by the oil companies he's made a lawn mower ! Why?

There's an Italian guy in Melbourne who has made an engine that runs on air. He's screaming out for funding to develop it even more but such calls fall on deaf ears in Canberra - much better to fund Toyota to develop last century's technology slowly.

Strange how the oil companies always seem to come out winners ! I wish I could harness that luck on the roulette wheel and have the lucky streak go for so many years.

Let's hope our luck holds and we can get rid of the ETS or any kind of cop-out for the polluters - if we don't the place will be in a RUDD-Y mess!!!

Great to learn that the ETS is rejected for the 2nd time....but it is not finished.
If the government introduced a scheme for every household to have a 1.5kw solar system on their roofs, in my opinion that would really reduce our carbon footprint and help the planet. I also know that electrical companies would lobby the government as they would loose making money, but lets be honest, it would certainly be a great investment for the government instead of spending 50 billion on broad band.

Thank you for your great work in the last week. We think Tony Abbott will grow on us. We heard you on Michael Smith's show on 4BC this afternoon. You must be exhausted. Anyway, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and we will certainly keep fighting that damned ETS. We just hope Anna keeps talking about Queensland having its own ETS because she will cop the wrath of us voters. Thank you once again and also to your staff who probably don't get much acknowledgement.

Barnaby, thank you, thank you. Due to the unbelievable malice of Rudd and Wong ,our Nation is close to being hurt like never before in our history.
How could our own Prime Minister, supposedly sworn to protect our country
cold bloodedly betray us and sign away away our precious and hard won freedom and prosperity. long after we are all gone, along with Rudd and Wong, our children and grandchildren will still be paying. All to serve up our nation to a bunch of Communist pond scum at the UN.
Thank you for your fearless defense of Australia. its not over yet, but now there is a chance, if only the spooked and brainwashed electorate will stand up and fight,

It seems that we are the first to toss this legislation out...
It has made the press all over the world,
This is from the Investors Business Daily.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=514118

Hi Barnaby,

Could you address the implications of Rudd signing the Copenhagen treaty.
Does the treaty require senate approval?
Do you have a copy of the final treaty?
Do you agree with Lord Monckton's assessment?

Let's hope the Australian ETS is not like the EU Lisbon treaty where they just kept voting on it until it was approved. We need signs that say NO MEANS NO.

How about some open to the public debates over environmental issues with senators in attendance?

Does anyone have a condensed list of the house or reps email contacts. I thought I seen one on here soem time ago I just wish to copy and paste it .

Barnaby you need to tidy this site up mate. Latest post first etc.

"Could you address the implications of Rudd signing the Copenhagen treaty."

That is a must.

Barnaby, what a magnificient gutsey boots and all effort by you and your team. Not to mention Tony Abbott & Nick Minchin.It just goes to show,that if you don't try then you,ve got no chance. Finnally we are starting to hear that if there is climate change there is not enough evidence to say that it has been caused by humans.Dick Warbutton seems to be on the right track!!!.The power of the Press is unbelievable.Too many people believe what they read without question.I mainly read the Financial Review.I don't know why.Most of the journalists try to be impartial but they just cann't help themselves.Totally unprofessional. As usual it all starts at the top.If the example and discipline isn't right there it's the same all the way to the bottom.Laura Tingle etc.----don't take a bow,you are too pro-Labour &ETS.You've spent too much time in coffee shops and not enough in the real world. Peter west lives in Forbes.NSW.I' ve been a Farmer & part of a family owned rural business for 40years.My brother and myself have 8 sons between us.None of them have or will join us in the business!!!!---Why would they want to.

Question: According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference can we make?

Answer: It's true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out "naturally," humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.

I must be a dumb labor leftie - I just don't get it... we are going to get subsidies to off-set out increased costs but who is paying for the subsidies? If we are subsidising the low and middle income families of Australia, where is that money coming from? I just cant get around the fact that usually it is the low and middle income families who pay their taxes that usually support everyone else... hmm... we NEED A WEB-SITE WITH FACTS ON WHAT THE ETS WILL ACHIEVE to go to with the coalition side of the story so we can get the facts on costs - the Climate Change Department web-site only deals with information up to 2013 and it is as pretty as a picture... what happens after then? Are the projected costs going to increase further? Sorry, I still don't understand who is going to foot the bill... I must be a real dummy because as far as I can tell Rudd is telling us it won't be us...

I don't live in Queensland, but I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction for Australia.

The arrogance of politics comes to light when government and parties continually and persistently try to push the ETS, even though common sense as a human being should tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

Before humans, the land was everything. The C02 has always been on earth, it was produced consistently and sustainably from plants.

Trying to take away a natural process is not going to work, and neither is taxing people for something that is clearly not their fault/ under their control.

We will crush this myth, so that future generations can be taught the truth about weather and climates and not have to pay for the stupidity and ignorance of politicians who do not deserve their positions.

Politics seems to be a constant debate, but this is not something that is debatable.

The science behind the truth is astounding in depth and volume, and everyone should have the right to see that information for what it really is.

Keep going Mr Senator, because if the spoilt brats we call a government want to do this, they better be prepared to deal with the adults of Australia.

Congratulations on a brilliant interview on Insiders this morning. So refreshing to hear you taking it up to the government on its disastrous ETS proposal.. I especially loved your comment when Barry Cassidy asked how you would describe Kevin Rudd - he's overseas. Sums it up. Keep up the good work. I can at last see some hope for the future of this country.

To Mrs Barnaby Joyce, It's always a great day when common sense and logical thinking prevail. Thank you for being such an important part of this immence achievement. It's all about doing the simple things right and then the bigger things will look after themselves. I know that you do a lot more than just send Barnaby off to work with a smile on your face and also greet him with a smile when he comes home; but just simple things like that can mean the difference between him going off with a clear relaxed mind instead of inner frustrations. He sees things so beautifully from a " grass roots" level and makes both common sense and logical thinking look easy. Please congratulate him for me when you see him again,for his effort this morning when he appeared on Insiders. I thought it was excellent and very much benefitted the moment. Thank you once again for being such an important part of the team thats looking after this ordinary down to earth bloke who is well and truely worth looking after.

It is always a pleasure to hear a politician who actually speaks his own mind. Good luck with your ambition for getting into the lower house, it will certainly be a pleasure to see more of you on the news, (but don't get too sucked in with all the spouting of jargon, stay yourself, that's the way we like you!)

With regard to the ETS I was initially for it, but heard you speaking against it and so have researched it a little more. I'm glad it has been quashed. It would be nice to keep hearing about what the policies will actually do (as they get reintroduced). Apart from a carbon reduction thing though, it would certainly be nice to see more focus on a renewable energy side of the argument.

All the best, looking forward to hearing more from you on the front bench!

A straight talking, non-spinning politician who has put some daylight between the Coalition and the Labour Party - how refreshing is that! And not only that but he wants the public involved in such an important issue.
If the average human weighing 80Kg represented the total worlds out put of CO2 and KRudds Extra Tax System was 100% effective, the amount of CO2 the world would be spared is equivalent to the weight of 1 match. Needless to say that won't do much to change the climate. We need to debate this tax and its implications.

CLIMATEGATE PROFESSOR REDUCED TO OBSCENE ABUSE IN LIEU OF INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION

That rather tells its own story. He couldn't handle the truth of what was being said

A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in "tabloid-style character assassination” of scientists, called an American climate skeptic “an assh*le” on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC's Newsnight program. “What an assh*le!” declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot's executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.”

The remark was broadcast live on BBC and prompted an on-air apology to viewers from the BBC later in the program for the offensive language.

Watson (Email: a.watson@uea.ac.uk) is a professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Watson's emails appear in the hacked Climategate files.

During the live debate, Morano challenged Professor Watson for being in “denial” over the importance of Climategate and noted that “you have to feel sorry for Professor Watson.”

“[Watson's] colleague, [Professor] Mike Hulme at the University of East Anglia is saying this is authoritarian science, he is suggesting the [UN] IPCC should be disbanded based on what Climategate reveals," Morano said.

"[UK environmentalist] George Monbiot is saying many of his friend in the environmental and the climate fear promoting business -- as Professor Watson is part of -- are in denial. You have to feel sorry for Professor Watson in many ways here,” Morano explained.

A clearly agitated Watson blurted out “Will you shut up just a second!?”

Morano summed up his views on what ClimateGate reveals during the debate. “It exposes the manufactured consensus. Your fellow colleagues are saying this,” Morano said to Watson.

SOURCE (See the original for links, video)

MAKE SURE THAT YOU EMAIL THIS SO CALLED PROFESSOR AND TELLHIME WHAT YOU THINK OF GLOBAL WARMING!
HIS EMAIL ADDRESS AGAIN:-
a.watson@uea.ac.uk

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Dear Sir,
Congratulations and thankyou for your efforts in defeating the ETS.
I have never been involved in anything political before in my life and im about to turn 50, however I emailed Turnbull and asked him to resign, emailed Abbot and asked him to run for leader and emailed Fox News to ask them to more fair and balanced in their reporting of Liberal / National Party politics and not so pro Labour and ETS.
Rudd, Wong and the ETS are wrong. The desperatation and under handed manner in which they have gone about this suggests they have something to hide from the general electorate. THE TRUTH.
Thanks again, all the best in your future endevours.
Yours Faithfully, James Young
PS If there is anything I can do to help please inform me.

Professor Denies Global Wayming. Likens it to that of a cult and so much more.

Copy and paste the website above to read this amazing article.

Thank you for all your very kind comments. The response from the public to our fight against the ETS has been overwhelming and humbling. I appreciate the time and effort you have all made to follow the debate in the parliament and to watch the media interviews. Your comments are very much appreciated.

Barnaby

I lived in the Joe B-P era Barnaby seems to have gone more over the top and feral recently. We cant afford to have another person like Joe again dictating the terms of this country.

To:- Iain Rodger
I believe the individuals DICTATING from the radical minority to the silent majority are Chairman Rudd and Penny Wrong.
GET YOUR FACT CORRECT IMBECILE!
YOU are obviouslty a labor party SHEEP who is incaple of independant and rational thought!

Why cant Australia offset its carbon emissions with all the uranium we mine and used in nuclear power stations overseas? Maybe this is just too simple for the Government and they wont be able to rip us off with an ETS.

Why is it OK for nearly every other major economy in the world to use nuclear power and claim they are "green" when Australia is the country which enables this to be the case when they are using our uranium.

Its about time Australia started telling others how it is going to be and not the other way around!!

Dear Senator

I am a citizen who is very concerned about your, and the current liberal / national party attitude to taking action on global warming / Climate Change.

I have undertaken extensive reading on the scientific basis of the matter, and while there is a level uncertaintly regarding some aspects of the science and modelling, the evidence of human induced climate change (effectively warming, but more importantly a large increase in energy within the earths climate system) is overwhelming and continually improving - it is based on fundamental physics and chemistry.

I expect my elected representatives to dispassionately read and understand the facts on matters of such national and international concern and if necessary organise extensive briefings from relevant and peer reviewed scientists to improve understanding.

If action is within our power regarding climate change, we should act - the consequences of no action are serious and potentially very large indeed. When climate changed in the past there weren't 7 billion (going on 9 billion) people on the planet relient on a relatively stable climate for food and water, not to mention the hundreds of millions of people living in and around coasts & estuaries.

It is fair enough that elected representatives should vigorously debate the most efficient and effective methods of reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases while being cognoscent of economic and social impacts. I do not believe, however that it is appropriate to ignore scientific advice and do nothing on the basis that action will necessitate structural change in our economy and society. It is the fundamental role of government to provide a process for structural change when this is necessary and even if it is hard (think of many of the Howard government reforms).

I also contend that this structural change, by placing a price on greenhouse emissions, would give the opportunity for consumers and business alike to even save / make money over time. Businesses produce good and services because individuals consume, and individuals consume because businesses create desirable products to consume - we are all part of the problem, we should all be part of the solution.

While I am aware there is always devil in detail, as a simple principle, a carbon tax (which is different to an ETS) could do this if offset with tax reductions in other sectors. For example if my energy bills increased by say 25% due to a new tax, but other taxes were reduced to offset these costs, the impact on me would be neutral. However, I would still have the incentive and ability to reduce my energy use over time (and therefore my tax liability) by investing in a whole range of measures (low energy / efficient lights, appliances, better building design / more efficient transport, improvements, some lifestyle changes etc....). By these sorts of changes I would reduce my energy bills and reduce / avoid my carbon tax liability while still pocketing the gains of the other offsetting taxation reductions. The same principles could apply to business.

In short consumers could actually come out ahead in the medium and longer term with an overall reduced tax liability, while still reducing CO2 and other emmisions. This type of scheme could suit a political party committed to containing / lowering overall taxation levels.

I request that you consider these issues thoughtfully.

Paul

Thank you Barnaby and the people who have helped YOU.
JUST great but the battle is still on as to what Rudd will do at the Copenhagen meating as it is our MEAT freedoms he wants to sell out to the EU.
Well we still have our rights of Freehold, Freedoms and privileges for ?awhile? how long who knows.

What people should be SO SO thank full FOR TO is the inventors of the HYDRA Called the INTERNET as if we did not have it, then things could be very different NOW.
Information transmitted all around the world in the time of thought not with the wind and air.
This does not "bowed", well for the likes of control they had over the media as why they were allowed to BUY UP MOST OF THE INDEPENDENT PAPERS. The likes of the independent PAPERS TV AND RADIO they could NOT CONTROL until they were allowed to buy out or to be bought out by our governments.
ON both sides of the political fence.
Then we have had the people like Barnaby who had the you know whats to stand and SPEAK THE TRUTH on things now matter how hard it became with the full force of the Government and the cronies behind the European Tax SCHEMES =SCAMS attacking them from all sides.

The three things that tells you the governments have been pushing for the EUROPEAN UNION are.

Value Added Tax here known as the GST Grab,Steal,Take TAX.
Metric System, in measuring from and started by Napoleon.
Dollar currency.
And the us of Citizen instead of subject.
Citizen comes from the French words, person owned by a CITY.AS they were.
Then The Queen becoming a Citizen of the EUROPEAN UNION.
NOT SUBJECT of BRITAIN,REF, The Reich Council of the Nobility of Germany then go to Great Britain.Tells all.
Then the cream on the cake was Turnbull and his arrogance to push for it
as he diid for the REPUBLIC UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF KEATING.
OH and his Turnbulls TRADING bank for Trading NOTES worth Billions, as was said on the TV news.
Albert Hopkins Shirley.

I doubt there is such a thing as Global Waming. It is a creation of the UN as a cover for their real control agenda- . Sea levels are the same as ever, everywhere.
I read a speech today by Senator Joyce, who pointed out that we are one of the few countries who can still feed our people well. Lets not take this for granted, Farmers will be taxed into oblivion the same as everyone else, , and for what result.?
To support a bloated increasingly demanding beaurocracy, to make Bankers and leeches and other parasites rich, to give the ALP a slush fund.
To surrender part of our sovereignity, much of our wealth,
And the climate will stay exactly the same.
The UN will not give up on this lie easily, the pressure will go on.
Thanks Mr Rudd, for your treachery.
From this day i will refer to the ALP as the Watermelon party. Green on the outside and red on the inside,

I doubt there is such a thing as Global Waming. It is a creation of the UN as a cover for their real control agenda- . Sea levels are the same as ever, everywhere.
I read a speech today by Senator Joyce, who pointed out that we are one of the few countries who can still feed our people well. Lets not take this for granted, Farmers will be taxed into oblivion the same as everyone else, , and for what result.?
To support a bloated increasingly demanding beaurocracy, to make Bankers and leeches and other parasites rich, to give the ALP a slush fund.
To surrender part of our sovereignity, much of our wealth,
And the climate will stay exactly the same.
The UN will not give up on this lie easily, the pressure will go on.
Thanks Mr Rudd, for your treachery.
From this day i will refer to the ALP as the Watermelon party. Green on the outside and red on the inside,

No Surprises as 48 Third World Commonwealth Countries Support “Climate Change” Payouts — TO THEMSELVES
==============================================

December 1, 2009 by APP News | Print this post

It was no surprise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) when 48 Third World nations enthusiastically agreed to the First World paying them out billions for so-called “climate change” damage.

The $10 billion fund — taken directly from taxpayers in First World nations — is supposed to allow these Third World nations to “build defences against flooding” and to “reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

The CHOGM also unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement for this ongoing swindle and called for what they described as the “strongest possible outcome” at next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.

It was announced at the CHOGM meeting that the quite-mistakenly called “global fund” (it is not “global,” but First World only) fund is aimed at distributing “money from rich countries to the developing countries to help them adapt and pay for low-carbon alternatives.”

In other words, it is little more than yet another First World guilt trip, this time imposed by interest groups whose scientific premise is increasingly being challenged by large numbers of dissenting scientists and specialists from across the globe.

A partial list of these scientists and their conclusions follows:

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg, has produced research which says that “[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.

“Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.”

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”

* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ’scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”

* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists: “Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”. He has also said, “It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it.”

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity. Ascribing ’greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

* Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”

* George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”

* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

* William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

“I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”

These and a range of additional referenced comments and conclusions can be seen here.

Despite this, and the recent leaking of a large number of documents which show that climate change proponents in Britain falsified data to prove their case, the great handout of taxpayers’ cash to the Third World seems set to continue at the Copenhagen Summit next month.

Fortunately, there will be at least one voice of sanity at the Copenhagen Conference: British National Party leader Nick Griffin will be attending as part of the EU delegation.

“Those who warn of the consequences of climate change had reached an Orwellian consensus not based on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics,” Mr Griffin said in a speech in the EU parliament last week.

“The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology… But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.”

*The full list of Commonwealth countries who welcomed the cash handouts are as follows:

Antigua and Barbuda; Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei; Cameroon; Dominica; Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya;

Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tanzania;

Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; Vanuatu; and Zambia.

* It will be noted that Mozambique is also a Commonwealth nation member, despite never having been a British colony.

Gore’s mountain of misinformation
=====================

Hey you should all have a read of this:-

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gores_mountain_of_misinformation/

Giving the Chief Scientist cold water

Check out this story.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/giving_the_chief_scientist_cold_water/5

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

Hi all,
Have a read of how NASA is complicit in this global warming HOAX!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/research

Hey everybody here are some email addresses of web sites that are ACTIVELY PROMOTING this GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.

Why not email them and educate them on the REAL SCIENCE?

info@environmentaustralia.com.au
;blair@350.org;daisy.barham@foe.org.au;eleanor.smith@foe.org.au;louise.morris@foe.org.au;ozgreen@ozgreen.org.au;
annamaria.arabia@fasts.org;
qgl@qgl.org;
greenpeace@au.greenpeace.org;
risingtide@risingtide.org.au;
cstevens@wwf.org.au;
jlarkin@wwf.org.au;
astone@wwf.org.au;
rhoy@wwf.org.au;
earthvoice@acfonline.org.au ;membership@acfonline.org.au;
dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au;
amanda.mckenzie@youthclimatecoalition.org;
anna.rose@youthclimatecoalition.org

EVERYBODY SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE SUBVERSIVE NATURE OF THESE GLOBAL WARMING COMMUNISTS!
Now they are even BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG PEOPLE!
Something should be done about this!
Look at this website as an example:-
http://www.aycc.org.au/
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition is a coalition of Australia's largest youth organisations and over 50,000 young people from across Australia. Our mission is to build a generation wide movement to solve climate change before it's too late, through BRINGING ABOUT SHORT TERM POLITICAL IMPACT AND LONG TERM CULTURAL CHANGE.

Climategate – BRITISH LABOR GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO STOP MET OFFICE RE-EXAMING 160 YEARS OF CLIMATE DATA

Read here how the LABOR GOVERNMENT in Britain is attempting to silence any investigation into CLIMATEGATE!

http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/climategate-labour-government-attempts-to-stop-met-office-re-examing-160-years-of-climate-data/

ENDGAME: BlueprintForGlobalEnslavement - Global Carbon tax

Hi,
Everybody should have a look at this very enlightening video!
The SHEEP of Australia have to wake up to the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45pNNrGnMC4

Cheers

Its business as usual for the Liberals.
Abbott said his climate change plan would cost nothing - now we find even in interal Liberal discussions it will cost at least $50 billion.

In Abbotts first day on the job he was already telling lies

ETS PETITION
==========

Senator Steve Fielding has a petition going.

It seeks to:-
1. Establish a Royal Commission to look into the extent to which man-made carbon dioxide emissions really are the major driver of climate change.

2. Have the Productivity Commission report on the total costs to the Australian economy of Australia committing to an emissions trading scheme before other major world economies such as China, USA, India and Russia.

3. Have the Productivity Commission investigate whether there are more viable alternative schemes to the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/

Thank you Mr. Joyce for helping stop this pernicious tax. As you rightly point
out a round has been won but the fight isn't over. Please keep up the pressure to stop the ETS, no more than a money grab by an ego-maniacal Prime Minister. It will be interesting to see what grand standing he does in Copenhagen.

ABC CONTINUES TO MISLEAD ON INDIAN AND CHINESE “CARBON
=========================================
INTENSITY” LIMITS
============

The ABC is at it again, providing a misleading picture on global warming.

Last Night’s 7pm TV News reported that China and India have agreed to “curb their emissions (of CO2)”. (no link available)

They have not.

They have both come up with a smoke and mirrors trick to “limit their carbon intensity” which is evidently a way of measuring CO2 emissions as a ration of economic growth.

But this actually means they will still increase their CO2 emissions, not “curb” them as the ABC reported.

And with Australia’s CO2 emissions a tiny fraction of China and India’s, this means that whatever we do to reduce CO2 will be meaningless and completely ineffective, even if you accept that man-made CO2 is causing global warming.

THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF PROPAGANDA MASQUERADING AS NEWS !

http://australianconservative.com/main-site/2009/12/abc-continues-to-mislead-on-indian-and-chinese-carbon-intensity-limits/

Relieved to note you say "for now", since I believe that the ETS (replacement) is likely to come about and that is a worry. Meanwhile I am also concerned that whilst the public understand about the unwanted Tax, it may be that the underlying fraud is not so obvious. If refer to the information which has come out of the Hadley Climate Unit, to confirm in broad terms, what many have suspected for a long time, namely that "The Science' has been to a large extent falsified. Recommended reading is
"Climategate: Caught Green-Handed", a paper which was released on 30th November and which can easily be found by Googling the title.
I now appleal to you, as having a strong and prominent voice, to try to see to it that the Hadley matter is well known to the Australian public, even if those at the Copehagen meetings (Kevin Rudd included) will be trying to
bury what is after all a very major scandal involving Scientists "cooking the books" in a very major way. Having read that paper, one is bound to wonder whether we need any major action OTHER than, of course, cleaning up, getting rid of Smog, and improving fuel efficiencies and inovations.

Thank you for your considerable efforts in dealing with this whole sorry affair.

Regards
Campbell

SHOCKING UN DOCUMENT DIVULGES CLIMATE CULT BRAINWASHING
===========================================

http://www.prisonplanet.com/shocking-un-document-divulges-climate-cult-brainwashing.html

Kids coerced into performing global warming song as strategy document reveals plan to greenwash young minds by turning environmentalism into gaia religion

With the reverberations of climategate still echoing, it has now emerged that children are being greenwashed in public schools by being forced to sing climate cult ditties and hate their parents as part of a United Nations propaganda program aimed at capturing young minds, as the UN itself officially acknowledges the global warming mantra as a new religion.

A shocking new UN strategy document also reveals how elitists are recruiting members of academia from all over the globe in an effort to hide the “end-run” around national sovereignty that their program represents.

“When did global warming turn into a forced religion?,” asks the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser as she tells the story of how her daughter came home from school singing the words ” . . . You can hear the warning — GLOBAL WARMING . . . “.

“All the kids had been coerced into singing this catchy ditty, which we called “The Warming Song,” at a concert for parents. Further song lyrics scolded selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees,” writes Peyser.

That’s right, in the spirit of the Club of Rome’s 1991 resolution to make humanity the enemy in creating the contrived threat of environmental armageddon, children have been turned against their own parents in the service of a new gaia religion.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,” they wrote in a report entitled “The First Global Revolution”.

“Our children are on the front lines of the warming hysteria, a place where “experts” from Al Gore to the president leave no room for dissent or even the slightest skepticism, despite claims that are no more provable than the Earth is flat.,” says Peyser.

A newly uncovered document sheds some light on the genesis of how such brainwashing found its way into our schools.

A strategy paper for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog, reveals how the global elite in charge of the green takeover resolved that, “Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a Fox News report.

This approach follows a similar tack to the new methods adopted by Al Gore, who in his recent presentations has delivered his message as a kind of religious sermon, acknowledging, “Simply laying out the facts won’t work.”

The UN planning paper outlines a program of implementing a global system of governance based around environmental regulations and laws, stressing the agenda for the “evolutionary nature of strengthening international environmental governance.”

Participants included Janos Pasztor, currently head of the team pushing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s unprecedented Seal the Deal lobbying campaign to pressure U.N. member governments into signing a new environmental agreement at Copenhagen, Dominic Waughray, currently head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum; and Maria Ivanova, and Bulgarian academic Maria Ivanova, director of the Global Economic Governance Project at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

A core element of the program includes, “an extensive propagandizing role for UNEP that reaches beyond its member governments and traditional environmental institutions to “children and youth”.

“Civil society, including children and youth, and the private sector will be reached through tailor-made outreach products and campaigns,” states the document.

The document discusses recruiting academia to further the power of UNEP, noteworthy in light of the recent climategate scandal where scientists at major universities were caught hiding evidence of global cooling.

As the Swiss paper puts it, UNEP “should pioneer a new style of work. This requires going beyond a narrow interpretation of UNEP’s stakeholders as comprising its member states — or even the world’s governments — and recruiting a far wider community of support, in civil society, the academic world and the private sector.” At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be “harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments.”

This passage is fairly damning, as the UN is all but admitting that the program does represent an “end-run around member governments,” and that they have to do their best to hide the fact.

The goals enshrined in the document, a counterpart to the globally binding agreement the UN is seeking to achieve in Copenhagen next month, are “certain to remain a UNEP rallying cry long after the Copenhagen meeting is over — and while the other brainstorming ideas that went into the new four-year strategy, not to mention the strategy itself, go into effect,” writes Fox News’ George Russell.

This document represents yet another smoking gun proving that the climate cult movement is all about expanding the power of a dictatorial, unelected global government, diluting powers of nation states, seizing control of the global economy, eviscerating the middle class with a raft of new regulations and laws, and shutting down industry with impossible CO2 reduction mandates, while erecting environmentalism, which is really a thin veil for global fascism, as the new universal religion.

This has nothing to do with saving the earth and, as the climategate scandal has illustrated, nothing to do with the real science – but everything to do with a relatively small clique of globalists running roughshod over humanity itself in pursuit of their malthusian control freak agenda.

Lets have a debate about nuclear energy.

Lets have a debate about deforestation.

Lets have a debate about just how many people should the earth be able to support.

Lets have a debate about digging up as much coal and oil as we can in as quick atime as we can.

Lets have a debate about how many different animal and plant species we want to have and relate it to economic progress.

# Brian Monahan
Monday, December 07, 2009 4:48 PM


Are you nuts seriously using PrisonPlanet as a source of information? They claim that 9/11 was an inside job & that the US government conspired to murder thousands of its own citizens.
Grow up you morons

Dear Senator,

"We are going to be tearing him apart" was your comment re the Prime Minister. Now Barnaby, that hardly equals a policy becoming of a dignified parliamentarian. Speak bluntly and loudly but please don't become another Ironbar Tuckey.

Have you read Ross Gittings' article in The Age? Food for thought.

And can any Coalition be confident in a leader who was elected by 41 votes in favour and 40 against him, especially allowing for one absentee and one informal vote?

Let us keep one fact in mind.

The ecosystem on this planet is so large that it cannot stay the same. Its huge size means that it will always strive to attain a balance that it cannot reach so it will always operate in cycles. Much like our economy. No matter how much we try to manipulate markets, we cannot eliminate those cycles. And none of the "models" in existence take account the influence of the sun. Without the sun this planet would be at a temperature of -200 deg. C. And the thermometer did not exist until 300 years ago. and very few cities have kept long term records of weather changes. So shame on those scientists who have sold out their souls for money. They are as bad as the big polluters. Hopefully Tony stays the course and does not dilute his stance to pick up a few young votes.

Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income
========================================
story from the u.s.

Proposed Global Warming Policy Likened to 1970s-Era Energy Crunch

A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to current concerns about global warming, says renowned economist Arthur Laffer in a new study released today.

"Dr. Laffer's analysis is another death knell for the cap-and-trade approach to addressing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions," said Steven Milloy, executive director of the Free Enterprise Education Institute (FEEI), the nonprofit group sponsoring the study. "The Department of Energy, Congressional Budget Office and, now, Dr. Laffer have all concluded that cap- and-trade would be disastrous for the U.S. economy," added Milloy.

Laffer's analysis, entitled "The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and- Trade" concludes that:

-- Cap-and-trade may reduce U.S. economic growth by 4.2 percent -- even to achieve the comparatively modest GHG reductions of the Kyoto Protocol i.e., GHG emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012). The cost to reach the ultimate goal of some GHG control proponents (e.g., reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) would be significantly greater. Moreover, these estimates may underestimate the actual cost as they assume the government would auction the rights to emit greenhouse gases -- as opposed to simply giving them away, which is the approach often discussed in the Congress.

-- Because fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) provide 86 percent of current U.S. energy needs and it is not currently feasible to substitute contribution of alternative energy sources in the near-term, a GHG cap could effectively become an energy production cap -- or an energy supply shock.

-- During the previous energy supply shocks of 1974-75, 1979-81 and 1990- 91, the economy declined, unemployment rose, and the stock market declined in value.

-- Based on the energy efficiency responses to the energy supply shocks of the 1970s, the U.S. economy could be 5.2 percent smaller in 2020 compared to what would otherwise be expected if cap-and-trade regulations are imposed. This equates to a potential income loss of about $10,800 for a family of four for the initial Kyoto GHG reduction target.

"Cap-and-trade is a simply dreadful policy option that is being pushed by Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Dupont, General Electric, PepsiCo and the other big business interests that belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)," said the FEEI's Tom Borelli. "Global warming pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare are what they're after," Borelli added.

"USCAP members hope that, through a cap-and-trade scheme, Congress will simply give them and other special interests what amounts to essentially 'free money' -- as much as $1.3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years under legislation recently introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) -- as well as other competitive business advantages," explained Milloy. "Not only is cap-and-trade likely to misdirect taxpayer monies and rob hard-working Americans of income, it's not at all clear that it will produce any environmental benefits whatsoever," he added.

"The Laffer paper confirms that cap-and-trade is a lose-lose proposition," said Borelli. Given the well-established relationship between economic prosperity and a clean environment, it's hard to see how harming the economy won't also harm the environment," Borelli concluded.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2007/09/shaky-nasa-astrophysics-too-email-from.html

All the science of climate change is a disgraceful fabrication by scientists fearing losing their government grants – we know this because scientifically illiterate shock jocks & tabloid journalists , the subject of many previous cash for comments scandals, tell us so.

I AM KEVIN RUDDS MOUTHPIECE.
YOU MUST BELIVE EVRY WORD I SAY.
YOU MUST BELIEVE, YOU MUST BELIEVE, YOU MUST BELIEVE, YOU MUST BELIEVE...........
DO NOT THINK.
ONLY BELIEVE, ONLY BELIEVE, ONLY BELIEVE........

Barnaby, well done on the ETS - now time to start working on getting a good National Party canditate to replace Macfarlane in Groom.

Congrats on your promotion Barnaby. I hope that you continue to provide an effective opposition to the high spending, high taxing Rudd Giovernment.

Climate hysteria just warming up
====================

Copenhagen summit: Just like the Olympics, but with only one nation represented.
COPENHAGEN is going to be two weeks of insane hysteria. Just like the Olympics, but with lots of snow, courtesy of Al Gore and his `Gore Effect.'
There'll be another major difference. This will be like the Olympics with only one country represented. All 40,000-plus attendees will be batting for the same side, so to speak.
We are going to be deluged with wall-to-wall coverage of hysterical end-of-the-world claims unless we hand over billions of dollars a year, every year, and close down our economy.
This really is the ultimate gift that keeps on taking. Give us the money to fight climate change; and as the climate changes every year, the funding has to be permanent.
Gets hotter? Climate change. Gets colder? Climate change. Stays pretty much the same? Now, that's the really insidious climate change!
We've already had something of a minor deluge in the Antipodean paper of record for the First Church of Climate Apocalypse and Purportedly Pissed-Off Gaia, the Melbourne Age.
A series of them last week exactly and beautifully captured the mindless pap that passes for climate `science' and the proselytising of the climate hysterics and true or `truther' believers.
Beautifully, because the writers wouldn't have had any awareness of the mush they were delivering.
Arguably our greatest national hysteric, certainly at least an archbishop in the First Church, Tim Flannery, angrily denied that he'd become a `climate sceptic.'
Such a claim was "outrageous." He laid the blame for the outrage at the feet of our (the Herald Sun's) Andrew Bolt.
How did Bolt "twist" the truth? Simply by quoting what Flannery had said on the ABC's Lateline.
And I quote again: "So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you've got a very interesting problem . . . Sure for the last 10 years we've gone through a slight cooling trend."
That was it. Bolt pretty much just recorded Flannery's concession on temperature. He didn't accuse him of being a sceptic. He wouldn't have been that generous.
I'm not. Flannery revealed himself as a mathematical dunce. And I'm going to do the dastardly trick of quoting him directly again from his Age article.
The "overall increase (of the earth's temperature) since the industrial revolution of 25 per cent -- from 15 to 20 degrees . . ."
Actually Tim, that's a 33.3 per cent increase. And these are the sort of people who ask us to take as gospel -- that word is used advisedly -- the accuracy of the most complex mathematical calculations.
Mathematical ineptitude aside, the utterly unqualified statement of the temperature increase self-announces Flannery as a fool or a fraud or most probably both.
So the world's temperature around the time of the industrial revolution was 15 degrees? Not 14.5 or 15.5 or even 14-16? But 15, exactly and unqualified?
Presumably the global temperature came from readings from those 17th century satellites, with the data then fed through the computers at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia university.
With exactly the same integrity of all the other data from the CRU, which is the single most important research driver of the Copenhagen dynamic.
Oh, and by the way, it's not just the 15 degrees three hundred or so years ago that's gospel certain for Flannery. But the 20 degrees -- crucially, not now when we might be able to get close to a global measure of temperature, but at some unstated time in the future.
Then we had a strange piece from a character named Stephen Lewandowsky, described as the `Australian professorial fellow in the school of psychology at the UWA.'
A little bit of self-analysis wouldn't have gone astray.
The piece consisted of simple denial of facts. The Arctic is melting faster than predicted. No it isn't -- it was predicted to have already melted right away.
Temperature increases over the past decade had conformed to predictions. No they haven't -- see inconvenient Flannery quote.
Ludicrous claims. The genocide in Darfur was "a climate war."
A series of questions to which the answer is no, your premise is exactly wrong. And a defence of the thuggish behaviour of the climate believer-insiders at the CRU as an exercise in "quality control rather than censorship."
In the process very neatly demonstrating why the scandal at CRU should be a matter of concern for all academics. As it brings all peer review across every discipline into serious disrepute.
Peer review? Oh you mean peer conspire.
Beautifully captured when someone like this character can defend it even after the disclosure of the sordid behaviour.
It's going to be both a delicious and depressing fortnight as we get inundated with sludge and mush from Copenhagen, mediated through much of the lamestream media to borrow Bernie Goldberg's apt description.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/climate-hysteria-just-warming-up/story-e6frfig6-1225808076539

Well done Tony Abbott – you have demonstrated your environmentally responsible credentials. No matter how worn out & apparently useless an article is it still has a potential for recycling in some form or another - Bronwyn Bishop is now seniors spokesperson

Keep up the good work.

Now that this tax has been stopped it is time to look at the Copenhagen treaty that will give all political rights to laws and policies enacted in Australia to a government formed by the UN.

If my vote for any person in Australian politics is to retain any meaning, Kevin Rudd must not be permitted to sign this treaty.

Any commitment on this scale must be presented to a referendum of the Australian people and not left to a political figure who sees himself working for the governing body that he supports ( the UN )

It seems the price that he is offering for his next political appointment is us and our nation.

I'M A RACIST AND A RELIGIOUS BIGOT.
JUST IGNORE ME!

The one flaw that wipes out the so called global warming crisis
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The important role of feedback in IPCC predictions

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-one-flaw-that-wipes-out-the-crisis/#more-4656

Brazen hypocrisy:-


Sir Richard Brazen, the only global warming crusader to own an airline, says he in particular must cut emissions:

Because I’m in one of the dirty businesses, I have all the more responsibility to do something.

And here’s his latest “something” on emissions:

Virgin Atlantic has unveiled the world’s first commercial passenger spaceship… The company hopes the winged, minivan-sized SpaceShipTwo will rocket tourists into zero gravity beginning within two or three years.

“This will be the start of commercial space travel,” Virgin Atlantic Airways founder and billionaire Richard Branson ...

And who is Brazen’s partner in this gassy green crime?

Australia’s most famous environmentalist, Tim Flannery, has lent his name to a scheme by the world’s most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists. Flannery yesterday defended his new role as an “environmental consultant” to Branson’s Virgin Galactic venture, which aims to sell space trips to civilians.

It continues to amaze me that anyone still takes these characters seriously.

But what matters is seeming green, not actually doing it. And Brazen does his best to do that seeming:

He told the students sustainability continued to be a major part of business, but urged more big companies to follow his lead… “I try to do a lot about it.” As part of his environmental efforts, he said his company had recently succeeded in making a bio-fuel made from coconut oil which was capable of keeping a commercial airliner in the air.

So how are his coconut oil plans working out? Well, not so good, actually:

More to the point is Branson’s airline, Virgin Atlantic… Its website says its carbon dioxide emissions are currently approaching 4.8m tonnes. This is up from 4.2m tonnes five years ago…

Virgin Atlantic has a “flight plan in place to reduce our impact on the environment”. But this does not include cutting emissions. It means a “30% improvement in the fuel efficiency of our fleet between 2007 and 2020”. Which of course would be neutralised by a 30% increase in flights, something that, on recent trends, is likely to be an underestimate

You see, Brazen is all hot air:

Remember his last great green initiative - a new resort for warmist believers?

Branson said the eco-resort’s buildings would capture cool thermal airflows, eliminating the need for air conditioners. The guests’ food would come from an organic orchard, and beach buggies would be powered by biofuels.

The catch? Brazen’s resort is in the Caribbean. At the end of a gassy plane ride.

Hey scio why don't you your bit to save the planet and reduce global warming....
STOP BREATHING AND MAKING SO MUCH C02!

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!
THIS IS COMMUNISM MASQUERADING WITH THE FACADE OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CLIMATE OF THE WORLD!
IT IS ABOUT STEALING MONEY FROM DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LIKE AUSTRALIA) AND GIVING IT TO THIRD WORLD CORRUPT DESPOT DICTATORSHIPS!
THEY CAN THEN ENJOY THEMSELVES AT OUR EXPENSE!
THE PUBLIC IS NOW AWAKE TO THIS PLAN!
I WILL NOT LET MY FUTURE BE DESTROYED THROUGH THIS SCAM!
THE F@#KING COMMUNISTS WILL ALL DIE WHEN THE REVOLUTION STARTS!!

Francis Mckellar
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:07 PM
Hey scio why don't you your bit to save the planet and reduce global warming....
STOP BREATHING AND MAKING SO MUCH C02!




Actually , many scientifically illiterate dimwits think human breathing increases atmospheric CO2 . Obviously it doesnt (anyone who did high school science would understand why)

Thanks for playing - with your skills you could go straight onto Abbotts front bench as science minister

" # scio
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:45 PM
I'M A RACIST AND A RELIGIOUS BIGOT.
JUST IGNORE ME!"


This just shows the pathetic standards that the deniers have - obviously you have no idea what my religious or social views are - you are just chanting the normal ill informed drivel that morons think is informed comment.
Democracy is the enemy of you fascists

Peer review locks gate

by David Archibald

November 30, 2009

The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system. For those of us who served in the trenches in the climate battle, part of the much larger culture wars, this revelation is not news. In disparaging my papers, one of the first things that warmers would say was that they were not peer reviewed. They were, but that did not matter either, because like the warmer scientists, I got to choose my own reviewers. One of my papers passed a higher test than peer review. Real Climate devoted a post to attacking it, which was fabulous because it told me that I was having an effect, and gave me encouragement to keep going.

My nemesis in the solar science trench of the climate battle recently retired from the fray. One of the things he used to say was that bad papers will be forgotten and that they would be replaced by good papers. Of course, another researcher told me that he had to publish to counter the misinformation from my nemesis, who had taken it upon himself to go through the solar record, flattening out the bumps so that the Sun could not have an effect on climate. All that means is that good and bad papers will be published, nothing can stop that from happening, but the truth will finally out.

I don’t believe that changing the peer review system will help, in fact any prescribed changes are likely to make it worse. As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant. Making the system more prescriptive will simply entrench the corrupted establishment, similar to what happened as a result of the ban on tobacco advertising. With no advertising, new brands could not enter the market and the existing brands were spared the expense of advertising, increasing their profitability.

The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace. There are two ways to break the power of the corrupted establishment. In the first instance stop subscribing to journals that have promoted the climate fraud. If you work in any sort of academic establishment, it is your responsibility to the nation to recommend to your librarian that the subscription to Nature not be renewed. Secondly, we need more online journals so that good work can more easily find a home. This would increase the rate of creative destruction in the journal space.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/peer-review-locks-gate

The Copenhagen Debt Conference


Well it was a freezing day in Copenhagen for the opening of the UN climate change conference.

Although it’s not really a conference about Climate Change - it’s a conference with a set agenda to do 3 things

1. Get developed countries like Australia to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions - the way we’ll do that is by putting a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions that produce our power - that will make a huge pool of new money available

2. Work out how much money will go from the developed countries like Australia to the so-called undeveloped countries - with the sticky-finger traders along the way taking their cut

3. Produce a legal enforcement mechanism to make sure the money gets paid from rich to poor countries.

Doesn’t anyone see the joke in 15,000 odd diplomats flying into Copenhagen from around the world? There are 150 private jets parked there. They’ve run out of limousines to ferry people around, bringing them in from adjacent countries.

This huge conference is set up to work out ways for you and me to pay for the gases that were produced in creating the huge conference. Huh?

And at the heart of the conference is a transfer of money from you and me to countries that haven’t done as well as we have in developing their economies.

I am very proud of my ancestors. In 7 generations in this country my people have cleared paddocks, built businesses, created wealth and jobs - like most of us in the West my people have made our country great. And I want to get on and work to make it better.

The West’s development didn’t happen by accident - people worked to make our countries 'developed'. And they didn’t create some nebulous climate debt that future generations of busted-backside countries could call down to pay for their own corruption and indolence.

I am furious at the idea that just because a bunch of people sat under a mango tree and did nothing to develop their economies - somehow because I had hard-working ancestors I’ve got to pay. And my children will have to pay.

This UN inspired rubbish should be seen for what it is. The greatest attempt at a transfer of wealth in the world’s history. We should resist it.

One of the Abbott's "Liberals" nuttier comments is that climate change will double food production because plants love CO2 , the “farmers friend” – as grains such as wheat , maize, oats, new GM rice etc utilize C4 photosynthesis and are relatively unaffected by increased CO2 levels , Sophie Mirabella will no doubt launch the “Liberal Party 1001 Recipes for Weeds” cookbook , prior to the next election as part of Abbotts determination to address climate change.

Dear Barnaby,

Have you noticed the similarities between...
Shara Palin and Tony Abbott?

Are you really sure you want to get into bed with a personality like Shara ......
( sorry ) Abbott?


BOTH

Climate denialists.
Christian fundamentalists.
Right to lifers.
Anti euthenasia.

Palin writes... Going Rogue
Abbott's effort....Battlelines

Abbott has 'lost son' affair.
Palin's daughter has an affair and causes similar scandal.

Palin is blessed in the Wassilla church.
Abbott blesses Pope Benedicts visit to Australia.


Great pic of Palin and Abbott in swimsuits on Net....also
Abbott and Howard arm in arm. Old man Howard sidelined.
Palin and McCain embracing before she contributes to his downfall.


One ultimately fragments and then destroys the Republican Party while it looks like Abbott will eventually succeeded in doing the same to the Liberal Party.



Frank

To poster "frank":-
Buddy how is the way that an individual looks in their swimsuit RELEVANT to politics?
Is this the depth of your intellect?
The ONLY ISSUE is their policies.
The Liberals under Mr Abbott now have a PRO AUSTRALIA policy as opposed to Malcom TURNCOAT who promoted an ANTI AUSTRALIA policy.
It is about HARD SCIENTIFIC FACTS, not how you look in your cossy.
Now tell us how YOU LOOK IN YOUR SWIMSUIT.
You would hardly call Chairman Rudd's physique the epitome of masculinity and he would hardly look attractive in a swimsuit! More like a garden Nome.

To frank : Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:30 PM


Actually I think Sarah Palin would be great as Abbotts Science Minister - she rejects the science of climate change but totally believes in the "science" of talking snakes and magic trees that eternally curse our souls = she believes humans lived with dinosaurs, that the earth is 6000 years old and that a rampaging psychotic god drowned the world

Barnaby,

There are ten things that need immediate MEDIA EXPOSURE AND INVESTIGATION.
Here they are in order of importance:

1 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
2 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
3 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
4 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
5 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
6 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
7 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
8 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
9 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY
10 DETAILS OF THE COPENHAGEN TREATY


WHAT THE HELL IS RUDD SIGNING?

Dutch study: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro


Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation. In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free. At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place — driven by changes in solar radiation — resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” — since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team. The website of Elsevier magazine — the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly — broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/

(from the US perspective)

Already in draft in the Copenhagen Treaty are agreed here in Copenhagen, here’s what it’s going to cost you -

* The equivalent of half the US Defense Budget every year will be taken from your trouser pocket in supposed reparation for imagined – and imaginary – “climate debt”. That’s 2% of gross domestic product, which will be used to pay for the unelected, communistic World Government that the treaty draft describes.

* The other half of the US Defense Budget will also be taken from you, this time by way of a 2% tax on every financial transaction into or out of any Western country. In fact, this could end up costing a lot more than 2% of GDP, because the volume of transactions far exceeds total GDP.

* Suppose a newly-elected US Administration – after the mid-term elections, say – decides it wants nothing to do with Copenhagen, the world government will have the right to inflict unlimited financial penalties on – well, on you, Johnny boy. You elected the Obama team, and you’re going to have to pay for it, in spades.

* The new World Governnent will have the power to regulate all world markets. If the Treaty is passed in its original form, the very concept of the free market – the concept on which the prosperity of the West was built – will be swept away. It is this provision, taken with the absence of any provision for democratic election of the World Government, which establishes that world communism would be the outcome.


Say farewell to freedom, and her comely handmaidens democracy and prosperity. The Treaty is against all three.

http://sppiblog.org/news/copenhagenfog#more-21

"Jjannie", You do realize that both Rudd and Abbott share virtually the SAME religious beliefs don't you.
So I imagine, unless you are a hypocrite, that you find yourself unable to support Rudd in all good conscience.

Abbott is on Lateline , usual bunch of lies - "Rudd is moving in advance of rest of world" - bullshit - EU has had ETS for 5 years now , involving 25 countries (which has taken far more effort than expected due to business cheating)

"Howard had no intention to do anything that was different to rest of world" - even more bullshit - Howard's promise for 2007 election "“We have established a committee which recommended the introduction of an ETS. And work is well underway to introduce that by 2011. It will be the most comprehensive ETS anywhere in the world.”

Liberal lies - to the simple minded, they seem so true

Senator Joyce,

I have already provided your Media Rep. (David Allender) with scientific evidence, negating the so-called Global Warming phenomenon, as being caused (primarily) by mankind. And that 'assumption' is nothing but NONSENSE!

The Earth IS in continual (natural) evolution and not even God can change that FACT!

Mr. Gary Symons - You Sir, have summed it up in ONE word - NATURE!

That king of comedy Tony Abbott has done it again!!!!
Last night on Lateline you were telling us about your great (but shhhhhhhhh....its secret) plan to address climate change ....but an hour later you are telling us the earth is cooling.
Two totally opposite policies within one hour.

Tell us the one about Iraqs WMD again - that always makes us laugh

I AM A LABOR PARTY STOOGE!
I CAN'T THINK FOR MYSELF!
I AM ONE OF THE DISCIPLES OF THE CHURCH OF AL GORE!

More acidic oceans DON'T dissolve shellfish


Big blow to a big scare. Another simple theory does not survive an encounter with reality

In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide's (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures -- such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters -- unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

Because excess CO2 dissolves in the ocean -- causing it to "acidify" -- researchers have been concerned about the ability of certain organisms to maintain the strength of their shells. Carbon dioxide is known to trigger a process that reduces the abundance of carbonate ions in seawater -- one of the primary materials that marine organisms use to build their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The concern is that this process will trigger a weakening and decline in the shells of some species and, in the long term, upset the balance of the ocean ecosystem.

But in a study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Geology, a team led by former WHOI postdoctoral researcher Justin B. Ries found that seven of the 18 shelled species they observed actually built more shell when exposed to varying levels of increased acidification. This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased.

"Most likely the organisms that responded positively were somehow able to manipulate…dissolved inorganic carbon in the fluid from which they precipitated their skeleton in a way that was beneficial to them," said Ries, now an assistant professor in marine sciences at the University of North Carolina. "They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons."

Organisms displaying such improvement also included calcifying red and green algae, limpets and temperate urchins. Mussels showed no effect.

"We were surprised that some organisms didn't behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2," said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study's co-authors. "What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn't seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm]." Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster

The "take-home message, " says Cohen, is that "we can't assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms." WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

Dutch study: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro


Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation. In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free. At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place — driven by changes in solar radiation — resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” — since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team. The website of Elsevier magazine — the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly — broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence.”

Australia should do nothing on addressing climate change (which doesn’t exist by the way) & should wait to see what the rest of the world will do – we had this idea first so no other country can take this position

To scio,
You sir/madam advocate TREASON against Australia.
Let's talk about what YOU support.
YOU support an ENORMOUS NEW TAX on Australians, which will destroy our living standards, therefore robbing Australians of their future.
YOU support taking the majority of this extra tax and giving it to Third World Despot Governments, including CHINA (a COMMUNIST COUNTRY)!
AND ALL BASED ON THE HOAX OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
YOU have no care or concern for your FELLOW AUSSIES.
YOU are are selfish BASTARD!

MALCOM TURNCOAT

Why didn’t Malcolm Turnbull go quietly to the back bench? On a day when his party should be celebrating its stunning electoral successes in the by-elections in Bradfield and Higgins Mr Turnbull has chosen to further destabilise the Liberals.

Better still, why not drop the façade Malcolm and simply join the Labor Party.

Mr Turnbull’s blog today doesn’t sound like it was written by a man going quietly http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/702/Time-for-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspx

Mr Turnbull says his party’s policy has now descended into a "farce."

He says Mr Abbott is talking "bullshit".

Here’s another quote, "Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental fig-leaf to cover a determination to do nothing."

"We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted... on the issue of climate change."

Mr Turnbull seems to forget that his party’s base turned against him and his position. It was the overwhelming voice of the people, the inundation of MPs email boxes, the letters and the telephone calls that led to him losing his job and the party stopping the ETS tax.

So it must be galling for Liberal MPs to read of Mr Turnbull’s advice to them.

"I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well."

The party should look closely at whether or not Mr Turnbull should continue as an endorsed Liberal candidate.

Hey "scio", do the planet a favour,
STOP BREATHING and REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT!

Computer Models vs. Physical Evidence


The debate over "climate change" is odd, in that the climate changes constantly, and always has. Like most natural processes, maybe all, the climate never stands still. The Earth is always getting either warmer or cooler. At various times in the past it has unquestionably been warmer than it is today, and also colder--as when the place where I am typing was buried beneath ice a half-mile thick. That being the case, the fact that global temperatures have risen a bit during the last couple of decades is hardly a shock.

In the 1970s, when temperatures had been dropping for a while, there was a "global cooling" crisis in which many scientists predicted that humanity was doomed by catastrophic cooling. As soon as temperatures rebounded, what happened? Naturally, we had a "global warming" crisis. The two crises were polar opposites, except in the measures that were recommended to fend them off: government control over the economy.

In order to persuade anyone to take the most recent crisis seriously, the alarmists had to argue that there was something different, something unprecedented, about the slight warming that we have recently experienced. Hence the famous "hockey stick" graphs that alarmists have created, purporting to show that the rate of temperature increase in the last couple of decades is unique, and that present temperatures are warmer than those of the Medieval Warm Period and other historically warm eras. This required them to write revisionist history, using computer models to override physical evidence of past warm eras.

Kenneth Haapala of the Science and Environmental Policy Project explains:

As the questionable actions of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia are being revealed, we are witnessing how the life work of Hubert H. Lamb was tarnished by the very organizations he helped create. A pioneer in the scientific study of climate change, H.H. Lamb was the founder and first director of the CRU.

After he retired, Lamb wrote the classic, Climate, History and the Modern World, (Routledge, 1982 & 1995). Lamb synthesized the physical evidence demonstrating that since the last ice age ended, the earth has been both warmer and cooler than today. For over 3,000 years, 5,000 to 8,000 years ago, it was 2-3 degrees C warmer than today. The evidence for the Northern Hemisphere is extensive. Throughout North America and Eurasia trees grew 200 to 400 km closer to the North Pole than they grow today and in the mountains grew at higher elevations than they do today. The Sahara Desert was wetter. For example, cave paintings in the middle of the Sahara show natives hunting hippopotami in canoes or boats.

Because the land mass of the Southern Hemisphere is far less than the land mass of the Northern Hemisphere there is less physical evidence in the Southern Hemisphere. However, in the mountains of the Southern Hemisphere trees grew at higher elevations than today and Australia was wetter.

Lamb contended that temperature and climate changes were not uniform and differed both spatially and temporally; but, they existed world-wide and that temperature changes were more pronounced in the mid and upper latitudes than in the tropics. Based on his analysis, Lamb stated that warm periods were beneficial for humanity, and cold periods were harmful. He advocated that governments should fund studies on climate change so humanity will be better prepared for the next cold period that was sure to come. In the 1995 edition, he expressed concern that the study of climate change (global warming) had taken a wrong turn.

Lamb's research has been largely dismissed by the human caused global warming community. For example in discussing Lamb's work, Chapter 6, "Palaeoclimate" of the 2007 The Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4) states:

These local warm periods were very likely not globally synchronous and occurred at times when there is evidence that some areas of the tropical oceans were cooler than today (Figure 6.9) (Lorenz et al., 2006). When forced by 6 ka orbital parameters, state-of-the-art coupled climate models and EMICs capture reconstructed regional temperature and precipitation synchronous and occurred at times when there is evidence that some areas of the tropical oceans were cooler than today (Figure 6.9) p. 460.


The IPCC offers a graph showing a cooling of the tropical North Indian Ocean and the tropical Pacific Ocean as claimed proof that the extended warm period demonstrated by Lamb was regional, not global. Of course, there is little physical evidence of warming or cooling of these oceans to verify or contradict the computer simulations. Thus according to the IPCC, compelling physical evidence of extensive warming in one part of the globe is counterbalanced by computer simulations of cooling in another part of the globe for which physical evidence is lacking. The life work of Lamb in compiling physical evidence has been trumped by computer simulations with little or no supporting physical evidence.


And yet we know that those computer models are wrong, because they can't account for the past, they can't explain the geographic and atmospheric distribution of temperatures, and the current flat-to-cooling trend lies outside of the range of temperatures that they predict.

It is time we stopped playing the international game of subservience to the idiots who are driving us into global socialism and recognize we are now fighting for our survival as a nation.
Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce for having the balls to stand up for Australians and Australia, whilst the rest are apparently falling into abject apathy.
Keep up the good work Mr. Joyce, and may we see a re-surgence of the National party, to protect local industries.

It is time we stopped playing the international game of subservience to the idiots who are driving us into global socialism and recognize we are now fighting for our survival as a nation.
Congratulations to Barnaby Joyce for having the balls to stand up for Australians and Australia, whilst the rest are apparently falling into abject apathy.
Keep up the good work Mr. Joyce, and may we see a re-surgence of the National party, to protect local industries.

Brandon Ward Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:59 AM
""Hey "scio", do the planet a favour,
STOP BREATHING and REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT! ""

How clever - you can operate a CapsLock button.
If you attebnded high school science you may have learnt that human breathing has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

Thanks for playing - you almost make Tony Abbott look smart by comparison

John R. NolanWednesday, December 09, 2009 8:36 AM
"It is time we stopped playing the international game of subservience to the idiots who are driving us into global socialism "


Do you mean idiots like John Howard (who signed Kyoto in 1997 & took ETS to 2007 election) ........... or idiots like the Queen (who says climate change is a crisis & urges the commonwealth to act immediately) ........... or idiots like Rupert Murdoch (who says virtually the same as the Queen)..........or idiots like Tony Abbott (who has a secret plan to address climate change that will cost nothing but the other Liberals have already revealed it will cost at least $50 billion in tax)

Or do you mean idiots like your self - to smugly ignorant to actually read any science , prefering to chant inane drivel.

Grow up

Rachael Brown Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:19 AM
To scio,
"blah blah blah......TREASON ..........drivel drivel drivel...ENORMOUS NEW TAX. crap crap crap......COMMUNIST COUNTRY.........blah blah blah .....selfish BASTARD! "


Thanks Rachel ......... just a hint : an ignorant paranoid hillbilly who can use a CapsLock button is still an ignorant paranoid hillbilly.
China is not actually communist .... it is pure laissez faire capitalism - no workers rights, no free healthcare or education, no enforced work safety, no enforced freedom from sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace, no enforced minimum wages............I would imagine it is the utopia for the extreme right wing nutcases running the Liberal Party now

Scio - OK smart arse - why do they call themselves "COMMUNIST CHINA"? Sleazy liar

Helen O'Dwyer - are you related ro Rachael Brown?


China does not call themselves "COMMUNIST CHINA" (with or without the CapsLock)


They call themselves Zhongguo - it has very similar meaning to "Mediterranean"

"scio" it is irrelevant what China calles themselves.
The fact is that they are run by the Communist Party of China.
The USSR did not refer to themselves as Communist, which did not alter the FACT that they were COMMUNIST!
You sound like your mate Chairman Rudd with all your doublespeak and SPIN!

"scio" you obviously have no concept of understanding FACTS and TRUTH.
You must have your hands firmly placed over your ears(or other bodily parts) chanting LA LA LA....I'M NOT LISTENING........
Are you even employed or just bludging on welfare at hard working Australian's expense.

I'm waiting for the Antichrist Penny Wrong's head to start spinning like in the Exorcist movie!
By the way treason was punishable by execution.
and it still should be!

"chanting LA LA LA....I'M NOT LISTENING........"

How old are you .........12????
I guess literacy is not your strong point

Brandon Ward Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:03 AM


Read what I wrote idiot!
Only a total moron would call China a communist economy - it is pure laissez faire capitalism ..........its OK , you can go look up what that means. Money rules in China , money buys everything, no strikes, no workers rights.

scio Are you paid by the ALP to post lies and crap here or are you just natually ignorant and offensive?

You would get more intelligent debate from a brick than this scio character.
Clearly it is as think as one!

Smoking Guns Across Australia: Where’s the warming? Looking at 16 other locations.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/

Patrica Morris
Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:56 AM
Smoking Guns Across Australia: Where’s the warming? Looking at 16 other locations.



If you want real information , go to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website & look at their temperature & rainfall anomolies over different periods of time. You will realise how puerile the chants of "the earth is cooling" really are.
Or are ABM now a bunch of communist conspirators - like the Queen & John Howard ?

Ray Meares, Jenny Auld, Brandon Ward - perhaps the teacher can let you out early today & you can try to write something intelligent in collaboration. By yourselves you sound like smugly ignorant clowns

More hatred of democracy from the Green/Left


The More Americans Learn about Global Warming, the Deeper in "Denial" They Sink

It must be true; I heard it on NPR this morning. On my way to work, I was listening to this segment on NPR's Morning Edition about how and why climate change has become less and less a priority for Americans.

A recent Harris Poll, among the latest of several over the past year, shows that barely half of the American public believes that the carbon dioxide that's building up in the atmosphere could warm up our planet.


But here is the best part about this segment: After explaining that Americans have much to worry about these days and that, naturally, they will tend to worry more about things that are of more direct concern to them, we find out that democracy is an important reason for this problem:

Even as scientists become more confident that climate change is a serious hazard, public opinion is shifting the other way, says Kari Marie Norgaard at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash. "This seems irrational," she says. "And in that sense, it's challenging the basic premise that we have of an enlightened, democratic, modern society."


Or is it simply fear and denial?

Norgaard studied this shift in public opinion and found that as people start to feel overwhelmed by the scope of the problem, they simply turn away from the topic. It's a form of denial, she says. "We just don't want to know about it, so we are actively distancing ourselves from it or trying to protect ourselves from it."


So basically, the more we know about global warming and believe in it, the more we want to bury our heads in the ground like ostriches.

Seriously? Yes. However, in this craziness I would like to salute the host of Morning Editions, whose name escapes me at this time. He noted that because Obama, our green leader, had changed his plans about attending the Copenhagen meeting from the start and would now only show up at the end, he will have to make a separate trip to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize, seriously increasing his carbon footprint. That must be denial.

The IPCC shares the blame for Climategate

An email from Madhav Khandekar [mkhandekar@rogers.com] below. (Khandekar was an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change report)

Does the IPCC share some responsibility in this climategate? Most cetainly it does.

The problem of access to full and unprocessed raw temperature data from around the world has NOT developed over just last few weeks. It has been brewing for long, perhaps for months and years. Several scientists and professionals, not directly connected with climate science were denied access to the data for no valid reasons. Why did the IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri NOT intervene at the time and made sure that the basic raw data must be made available to anyone and every one? Does one have to hold a Ph D degree in atmospheric science or meteorology to get access to the data?

The CRU has defended its policy of NOT sharing data to anyone on grounds of "growing cost of servicing so many requests!" This is nonsense! The IPCC , a UN Body is supported by funding from all member countries and as such a person of any nationality can and must have full access to the data.

If the IPCC Chair had intervened long ago and made arrangements to transfer adequate funds from its overall budget to the CRU, we would not be in this sordid mess by now. The whole science of global warming & climate change rests with accurate determination of temperature trends and its independent verification by other scientists not necessarily connected with IPCC.

The IPCC Chair seems to have completely forgotten the basic tenet of weather & climate science, namely independent assessment of weather data NOT from within BUT from without. The IPCC Chair has dropped the ball on mean temperature calculation! it is a sad state of affairs for climate science!

The More Americans Learn about Global Warming, the Deeper in "Denial" They Sink


So true - its the same for the atheist "science" of evolution - more Americans believe evolution is fake science & that the earth is 6000 years old - so it must be true.

We can destroy climate science soon then destroy evolution. GLORY

This is an interesting article:-


The warming theory is falling to bits


Geoscientist Michael Asten says new research only confirms the man-made warming theory is in trouble:
(T)wo recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming…
Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world’s top scientific journal, Nature.
They unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…
Pearson’s work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.
We can compare these huge swings (both up and down) in atmospheric CO2 with current computer-modelled estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC which suggest that a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial times will produce a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C.
If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind’s pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?
Another key parameter in climate modelling is the warming amplification associated with increasing CO2 in our atmosphere. This amplification factor is generally believed to be greater than one, giving rise to an understanding that increases in atmospheric CO2 amplify warming (a positive feedback in the physical process)…
However since the IPCC’s fourth report, our Laboratory Earth has also delivered new data on this CO2-induced amplification factor...
(C)limatologist and NASA medallist John Christy and colleague David Douglass studied global temperature impacts of volcanic activity and ocean-atmospheric oscillations (the “El Nino” effect) and separated these from global temperature trends over the past 28 years.
The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position… What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.
So are we justified in concluding that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is not the only or major driver of current climate change? And if so, how should we re-shape our ETS legislation?
I don’t know the answer to these questions, but as Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

Kevin Rudd may be promising what he’ll never be able to deliver - not without losing the next election:


A draft deal has been hatched at the Copenhagen climate conference which would see Australia green up its actions on global warming.

Australia would have to slash its greenhouse emissions by 25 per cent in a decade if the deal got up, quadruple spending on climate-friendly research, and axe subsidies to fossil fuels. And taxpayers would have to find millions of dollars to help poor countries.

The secret deal has been proposed by the Danes, who are in charge of the conference, with some support from Australia and Mexico....

(R)ich countries would have to find $US10 billion ($A11 billion) a year right away to help poor countries tackle climate change.

How many billions is Rudd handing over? How much of our growth is he promising to choke? How many jobs are being killed off?

Copenhagen deal could cost us $400bn, says Abbott


AUSTRALIANS could be hit with a tax bill of up to $400 billion under a draft deal leaked from the Copenhagen summit, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said.
Under the draft, Australia would be asked to lower its emissions by 25 per cent within a decade.
Rich countries would need to reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Mr Abbott said such a plan would have a significant impact on Australia under the Rudd Government.
"Just to get a five per cent reduction in emissions, Mr Rudd wants to whack a $120 billion tax on us," Mr Abbott said.
"To get a 15 per cent or 25 per cent reduction in emissions on Mr Rudd's logic, it's going to be an even bigger tax - perhaps a $300 or $400 billion tax.
"So I think that the Australian people ought to be very concerned about anything that Mr Rudd might sign us up to in Copenhagen."
On a tour of a home with a newly installed solar energy system in the electorate of Dickson, held by his spokesman for health and ageing Peter Dutton, Mr Abbott said a lot could be done that did not involve "a great big whopping new tax" such as solar rebates for homes.
However, he would not say whether solar rebates would be part of his party's new policy.
"I think Copenhagen is going to turn into a PR stunt at best," he said.
"I just think that what we're going to get out of Copenhagen is a lot of words and not much action."
He said he hated to think of the carbon footprint of the delegates travelling to Denmark for the conference.
"They are certainly making a very substantial contribution to their own emissions," he said.

Mr Joyce,

Thanks for your excellent efforts. This link may be of interest.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf
In NZ the raw data from the NZ sites on actual temperatures is still available and has been compared to that put forward by the alarmists who used the same data. Apparently the actual increase in average temp in NZ (unadjusted) has only been 0.06 C over the last 150 years. An interesting read.

TIM FLANNERY

Can you trust him when he describes the future?
Let’s check some of his most famous predictions of global warming disasters.
In March last year, Flannery warned that “the water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009”. In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 85 per cent full.
In June 2007, he warned that Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.
In fact, Brisbane’s reservoirs are now 72 per cent full.
In 2005, he predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry by 2007. In fact, Sydney’s dams are now 54 per cent full.
In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.
In fact, Perth now has a desalination plant and dams that are 51 per cent full.
Last year Flannery warned that scientists feared “this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”.
In fact, ice cover that year increased, and increased again this year.
Oh dear. Well, if you can’t trust Flannery to describe either the past or the future, can you at least trust him to act as he preaches in the present?
Well ... Flannery has just flown (again) to Copenhagen, where he’ll again demand we cut the kinds of gases he just blew out the back of his jet.
Indeed, Flannery flies so often that he boasted he wrote his latest book almost entirely in mid-air.
Even more startling is that this preacher of a less gassy life works as a consultant for the latest project of Virgin boss and warmist hypocrite Sir Richard, er, Brazen - to offer joy rides into space to the ultimate petrolheads.
But as I said, he’s right on one thing: it is now about trust. So do you trust Flannery on global warming?

Ronnel May Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:28 PM
""Copenhagen deal could cost us $400bn, says Abbott"


This is the Tony Abbott who claimed his plan to address climate change would cost nothing but other Liberals have said will cost $50 billion?

The same bumbling nutcase Tony Abbott who told Lateline last night he now has a SECRET plan to address climate change but then said an hour later that the earth is cooling??

Who listen to a bumbling dishonest clown like Abbott? The oaf who slept around trying to ecide whether to become a celibate monk , then chucked it all in because it was too hard for him? This conman has just never grown up

The End of Global Warming by Art Horn, Energy Tribune


The story of manmade global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.
That said, climate change is real. The earth has been coming out of a 450-year cold era known as the “Little Ice Age” since it bottomed out in the late 1600s. Hundreds of studies have verified the existence of this cold period. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to erase the climate history of the last 1,000 years in its 2001 report. They replaced all the peer-reviewed studies of past climate with one that fit their needs. The now-discredited “hockey stick” graph showed virtually no significant change in temperature of the world over the last 1,000 years. Conveniently, the graph then showed a rapid and abrupt increase in global temperature during the last 100 years. This is, of course, due to our sin of burning fossil fuels and stoking the fires of global warming.

The only evidence that human activity is causing global warming comes from computer models. These models take what the people who develop them know about how the earth’s climate system works and attempt to predict the future. Computer models are not evidence. Evidence is something real, something concrete that is not subject to change. Computer models can be changed by their creator. In fact the creator of the model can make it say whatever the creator wants it to say by adjusting parameters. That is not evidence.

In 2007, a study showed the failings of computer model forecasts. The models showed that there exists a global warming “fingerprint” in the air. This fingerprint is a dramatic warming of the atmosphere, not on the ground, but 20,000 to 50,000 feet in the air above the tropics. The 2007 study revealed that real-world temperature observations by weather balloons over a 50-year period showed no global warming fingerprint at all, none. The computer models had grossly overestimated the warming over the tropics. Real world observations trump computer models. Despite this revelation the climate alarmists continued to trumpet the coming doom if we don’t change our sinful ways. To do otherwise would threaten government grants to colleges and universities, research facilities and government agencies. Large corporations are developing eco-friendly technologies to replace fossil fuels and brokerage houses are looking to cash in big time on the evolving carbon trading markets. The United Nations is looking to use climate treaties to wrestle control of carbon emissions from independent nations. This will elevate the United Nations and its leaders to the role of effectively ruling the world’s energy consumption through one world-government authority.

The greenhouse/global warming theory states that as more carbon dioxide is pumped into the air, the atmosphere’s ability to vent excess heat to space will diminish. This is the mantra of global warming alarmism. More carbon dioxide means more heat gets clogged up in the climate system and the earth gets warmer and warmer. From this we have conjured up all the various climate disasters, movies, concerts, fixes, and swindles, with their varied political and economic benefactors and victims.

Enter 2009 and a new study by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi from MIT that uses temperature data from satellites. As background we start with the predictions. The climate models say that as the oceans warmed by one degree Celsius from the 1980s into the 1990s, the amount of heat escaping to space would decrease. More heat would be trapped in the atmosphere, ultimately due to the burning of fossil fuels. The warming of the oceans was natural and part of the large multi-decadal temperature changes that have been known for years. Now if only we had a way to measure the amount of heat going out to space, then we could get some answers. We do, it’s called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE). It was in orbit above the earth measuring outgoing long wave radiation (heat) for 16 years from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. This is very significant. Now we had a tool, and real world data, that we could compare to the computer model predictions. It is the ultimate climate system umpire.

The results from the Lindzen and Choi study were stunning. The computer models, all 11 of them, predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true, then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing. But the satellite data used by the Lindzen and Choi inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong. If the atmosphere is not trapping heat generated by warming oceans then there is no manmade global warming taking place.

The atmosphere compensated for the additional heat by opening the window a little more. The theory of global warming is lying on the canvas bloodied and dying. Alarmists will attempt to revive the carcass with even louder cries of impending doom and calls to repent. But this clamoring will fall on deaf ears. Science will ultimately prove the winner and the world will bury global warming in an icy grave where it belongs.

Art Horn is a meteorologist who has worked for CBS, NBC and ABC

The Fiction Of Climate Science by Gary Sutton, Forbes.com
Why the climatologists get it wrong.


Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Climategate, Copenhagen & the Collapse of Climate Change by Doug L. Hoffman


By now, even the American mainstream media has picked up on the hacked/leaked emails from CRU that implicate many of the world's top climate change activists in a tawdry web of lies and deception. US President Obama has reversed his decision not to attend the Copenhagen climate conference in a vain attempt to buck-up his flagging green credentials. Some claim we are witnessing the collapse of the climate change scam that the perfidious UN IPCC has been running for the past two decades, but is this true? All the signs indicate that the anthropogenic global warming crowd is going to ignore Climategate and proceed with business as usual.

The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, ranged from nasty comments by global warming researchers about climate skeptics to exchanges between researchers on how to present data in charts to make global warming look convincing. Coverage of the climategate scandal has been fast and furious in the blogosphere, with climate change skeptics quick to say “we told you so!” But the major news networks, with the exception of FOX, have pretty much downplayed the whole affair. Other news outlets are openly siding with the AGW true believers. According to Reuters:

“WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (Reuters) –Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal.

Already dubbed “Climategate,” e-mails stolen from a British university are sparking outrage from climate change skeptics who say they show that the scientists were colluding on suppressing data on how humans affect climate change.”

Their bottom line analysis is that the embarrassing climate e-mails will have limited impact and that scientists behaving badly won't change the evidence. And Reuters is not alone in supporting the climate change status quo.

In The Washington Post, Geologist Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom defended colleagues, saying skeptics are “desperate to discredit global warming” and “there is no need to do anything differently by the scientists.” Science historian Spencer Weart told the Post's Capital Weather Gang that such charges are unprecedented:

We’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.

Instead of addressing the content of the emails, AGW proponents are taking the low road and trying to smear anyone speaking out about the building scandal. Skeptics are likened to stooges for the tobacco industry, shills for Big Energy, people not to be trusted. The warmistas are true to form, trying to shut off debate by stonewalling or using personal insult.
Admitting that there could be a lot to learn from the documents if the owner of the emails would release them for analysis, Weart then discounted the cache of emails saying: “Of course no scholar can make use of stolen material, and in particular one cannot legally or ethically quote a private message without the explicit permission of the writer.” Wesuppose there will be more criticism because the correspondents were not read their Miranda Rights.

ScienceInsider, an online newsletter and blog from the AAAS, publisher of the journal Science, has rushed to do damage control for the implicated climate change activists. On climateprogress.org they provide a list of “related posts” that will give you an idea of how on-message the climate change establishment is:

Rep. Jay Inslee slams SuperFreakonomics: “People are still trying to write books to deceive the American public” on climate science.

Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)

Here’s what we know so far: CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us!

Newtongate: The final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment “thinking”

Competitive Enterprise Institute to sue RealClimate blogger over moderation policy

The newspaper that publishes George Will (and Sarah Palin) editorializes: “Many — including us — find global warming deniers’ claims irresponsible.”

UK Guardian: “To stop a climate catastrophe … Scientists must stop sanitising their message”

As you can see, the climate change establishment is closing ranks and trying to dismiss or ignore the entire indecent. The AGW Cassandras are going to try and rally their forces at the Copenhagen conference with Barrack Obama leading the charge. The Obama Administration has dismissed the Climategate scandal and defended the science behind global warming. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House believes climate change is happening, but offered no documentation and rationale for that conclusion other than: “I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

According to inside-the-beltway newspaper The Hill: “The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.” Even so, Obama's on-again off-again trip to Copenhagen is on-again.

The White House is facing criticism from the left for offering too few concessions ahead of the climate change conference. It is also having to deal with grumbling from the right for participating in a summit sponsored in part by the IPCC. Obama's decision to attend fits his modis operandi—whenever the going gets tough, Obama flies somewhere in Air Force One and gives a speech. As his sinking popularity numbers indicate, this act is getting old.

Our message is simple: don't become complacent! This war is not over by a long shot. Despite the great job being done by bloggers like Marc Morano, skeptics like Lord Monckton and right thinking politicians, this is only one battle in a long struggle. The forces of global warming will not quietly slink away, they have too much at stake—political influence, billions of dollars in research grants and their professional reputations are all on the line. This is a fight to the finish and the forces of skepticism must remain stalwart.

This is food for thought!

Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising”


Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."


What a load of bullshit!! You morons are trying to rewrite history

The scientific consensus in the 1970s was for global warming due to the greenhouse effect - Time , The Telegraph & sloppy tabloid journalists pushed the new ice age nonsense

It's abundantly clear if one reads any of these so man made global warming support web sites (eg world wildlife fund, friends of the earth, ozgreen etc...), that the target of this BRAINWASHING has been CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE!

One can easily see that they are the ones who have been DELIBERATELY TARGETED by these fanatical green on the outside, RED UNDERNEATH, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNISTS!

That is what the COMMUNISTS used to do in the Soviet Union.
Manipulate the most impressionable, gullible and nieve members of society, CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE , who are then expected to go out into the world and into their families and convince them of the HOAX!

EVIL CHILD ABUSE!!!!!!!!!

I hope you enjoy living a SUBSISTENCE LIFESTYLE because that is what YOU will be living if the antichrists Chairman rudd/penny WRONG get their ETS(Extra Tax System/Employment Termination Scheme) and their treasonous deal at COPENHAGEN!

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE DRAFT?

You have obviously been BRAINWASHED by The Global Religion Guru!
How much of YOUR OWN reading/research have YOU done on this particular subject? Or are YOU simply one of the SHEEP that cannot think for THEMSELVES!

So what you are saying is that you are ESTATIC at the thought of the following:-
64,000 jobs GONE out of the resources sector
17.5 billion dollars in extra taxes by 2012-13. to GIVE AWAY to third world countries
Electricity prices up 200%
Food; up 25% overnight,
Fuel; up 30%
Unemployment 20% (this is what happened in Spain!)
Governance by the unelected UN
All services and prices for goods to SKYROCKET
Etc etc…….

Do you seriously agree with these things?
Impact on the Earth’s temperature(which is COOLING) of an ETS – ZERO!
Impact on Al Gore’s bank account up by BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, through carbon trading!
Impact on Rudd – nice job on UN.
Impact on you and I – screwed!!!!!!!!!
Don’t say “that can’t happen”. It WILL happen, THIS YEAR if people don’t speak up against it!
It’s sad that there are so many UNTHINKING SHEEP in Australia, who will just accept what is being done to them without a word.
Diggers fought and died to protect Australia and YOU advocate signing away our SOVERIGNITY at the stroke of a pen.
What a traitor! Or are you simply an imbecile?
Once this ETS(Extra Tax System/Employment Termination Scheme) is introduced and this COPENHAGEN treason at the UN is signed there will be no way that we can withdraw from our obligations. Voting in another government here will not be able to undo this.

Don't forget that if this treasonous deal is signed in COPENHAGEN then part of Australia's SOVERIGNITY is being signed away. UNDERSTAND!
There are HIDDEN consequences also. By signing we are acknowledging that Australia has a DEBT to the Third World!
Therefore OVER 7 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR(increasing) are going to be just GIVEN AWAY to these countries. So they destroy their own countries with deforestation, poor land use strategies and corruption and WE GET TO PAY THEM FOR IT!

Read these stories if you doubt me.
========================
SUBJECT: Nations to seek billions in 'climate debt'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26380589-23109,00.html
-----------------------------------
SUBJECT: Africa agrees on secret climate damages demand

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLH624029._CH_.2400
=========================
So YOU are quite happy even ecstatic at the prospect of handing all this money to these countries while at the same time DESTROYING YOUR OWN country’s economy. Thereby plunging Australian's living standards back hundreds of years, while at the same time ELEVATING those of Third World Countries to our standard of living.

Please explain how this will affect the temperature of the Earth.

Please explain how this is in Australia’s best interests.

Are YOU INSANE? HAVE YOU SEEN A DOCTOR? Maybe YOU have an interest in a carbon trading company and stand to profit?

And all based on what? A HOAX!

Parties with interests in carbon trading companies will become the new billionaires, while normal citizens will live in POVETY!
What about Australian Hospitals, Roads, Social Services etc.

Charity begins at home!
Obviously, YOU do not care about the welfare of your fellow Australians!
What a SELFISH ATTITUDE!

Oh of course we will have all these new green jobs YOU say. Tell me have you visited a wind farm lately. See many people working there? What about a solar power station. See many there either? No, I didn't think so!

ANSWER ME THIS:-
Al Gore has been issued a challenge to debate global warming.
HE HAS REFUSED!
What does it tell you about his convictions?
What is he afraid of?
Obviously being discovered as the Con Man that he is!

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=349
============

Global warming has already been proven to be a HOAX.
Read what a prominent IPCC member and lead author on many of their papers has stated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
and this
http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/michael-smith-blog/deconstructing-global-warming/20091104-hxsw.html

YOU provide references to JUST ONE UNBIASED SCIENTIST who states CATEGORICALLY, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS ABSOLUTELY CAUSED BY MANKIND!
Not MAYBE or POSSIBLY!
I challenge YOU to do so!

The Earth is in fact COOLING!
Everybody is entitled to their own OPINION on this so called man made global warming - NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN FACTS.
The SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE THAT THE EARTH IS COOLING!
Who are the DENIERS now?
The following story is very enlightening regarding so called man made climate change. “http://www.worldclimatereport.com /index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/ “
Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention? The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the LOWEST ever recorded in the satellite history.
Oops so much for global warming.
Seems like very selective reporting by the media in the global brain washing campaign.
Only ONE SIDE is ever presented and NO TRUE DEBATE has ever been entered into.
Any dissenting view is ridiculed with puerile name calling- this attitude is insulting to people's intelligence to say the least.
Have a look at this article :-
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/global-bully-rudd-fights-for-foreign-committee-against-citizens/

One of the sources of corruption from the heart of the AGW scientific engine room, The Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit has been hacked recently, with a large amount of data released. It throws serious doubt on man made global warming. This story has hit the New York Times, the UK’s The Telegraph, Fox News and the BBC.

Read this document on the IMPLICATIONS OF AN ETS ON AUSTRALIA:-
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/backtothe19C.pdf

Read the document "The-madness-of-ETS.pps" (http://www.jimball.com.au/The-madness-of-ETS.pps) and checkout the list of
over 30,000 highly qualified scientists worldwide on this (
http://www.petitionproject.org/) web site WHO ALL REJECT THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING RUBBISH!

“The opposite of sceptical is gullible.” The scientific process should always remain open to investigation, which means, “to criticism. Thus we can get rid of a badly fitting theory before the adoption of the theory makes us unfit to survive. By criticizing our theories we can let our theories die in our stead.” Karl Popper, The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions, an essay in “The Myth of the Framework.”

Until this leaked data is analysed there should be NO VOTING on any ETS(Employment Termination Scheme/Extra Tax System) by the Senate.
Additionally, there should be no negotiation at COPENHAGEN until the veracity of the claims made in the data are verified.
It would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE of the Labor Federal Government to do otherwise.
Potentially this may be the Smoking Gun which proves that the population has been conned by all the man made global warming fanaticism from the CHURCH OF AL GORE. Who, by the way is not a scientist, only a failed politician.

Lord Christopher Monckton successfully prevented Gore's film from screening
in Britain. The legal system was obviously not convinced by the global
warming science fiction movie(a convenient lie) which contained over NINE GLARING ERRORS.
Read this:-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do

Remember "The opposite of sceptical is gullible.” The scientific process should always remain open to investigation, which means, “to criticism”.
The Earth's climate is tremendously complex and far from thoroughly understood.

Ahh you say it has been SO HOT LATELY. Yes, it’s called THE WEATHER.
There was WEATHER prior to man’s existence on Earth and there will be WEATHER post mankind. It follows natural cycles.
It is the HEIGHT OF ARRORGANCE to think that mankind can affect the WEATHER on planet Earth. Only God has that power!

But, as that well known RED, Lenin said,
A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH BECOMES THE TRUTH.

You can fool some of the people all the time
You can fool all the people some of the time
But can’t fool all the people all the time
"Abraham Lincoln "

UN Challenged to Provide Sound Evidence for Catastrophic Forecasts


COPENHAGEN, December 8, 2009/CNW/ - The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC – see http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) today released the names of over 150 leading climate experts from 15 countries who are asking the United Nations and other supporters of this month’s Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming (AGW) and other changes in climate.

The COPENHAGEN CLIMATE CHALLENGE demands that the UN publicly substantiate each of ten fundamental assertions that underlie current climate concerns – see http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/.

“With revelations that critical temperature data used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appear to have been intentionally distorted to increase warming trends, national representatives to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference must demand a thorough re-examination of the scientific evidence supporting proposed mitigation actions”, said Challenge endorser Dr. Tim Patterson, ICSC Chair and Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada). “This should not be limited to simple temperature data auditing but must also include a re-evaluation of many of the climate-related assertions uncritically accepted by politicians and media worldwide.”

Perhaps most significant among the scientists’ challenges was for proponents of AGW theory to comprehensively substantiate claims that:

- Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
- Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are dangerously impacting climate;
- Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.

“The science of climate change is not settled; it is evolving rapidly with critically important discoveries, many of which contradict IPCC findings, coming out every month,” asserted ICSC science advisor, Dr. Robert M. Carter, also a Challenge endorser and Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University (Townsville, Australia). “The already weak case for dangerous man-made global warming is getting weaker still as our understandings advance, so governments need a several decade long time-out while the science matures before even considering the possibility of GHG emission restrictions.”

“While policies designed to conserve energy, reduce pollution and help vulnerable peoples adapt to climate change are important to pursue, proposals to severely curtail GHG emissions in an effort to control climate make no sense, given the current state of scientific knowledge,” concludes Challenge endorser Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus, Physical Geography, Stockholm University (Uppsala, Sweden). “Instead we need to focus on environmental issues we know we can positively impact - air, land and water pollution being primary examples.”
__________________________________________________________________
The ICSC is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change. ICSC provides an analysis of climate science and policy issues which, being independent of lobby groups and vested political interests, is an alternative to advice from the IPCC. ICSC thereby fosters rational, evidence-based, open discussion about all climate, and climate-related, issues.

For further information about the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, visit http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

Hi,
This subversive organization was recently mentioned in the Brisbane Courier Mail.
They were sprouting LIES about how it is the hottest it has ever been!!
CRAP!
Send them a message and let them know what you REALLY THINK of them and their communist global warming agenda!

http://www.wmo.int/pages/contact/form_en.php

Question? What is the colour of Chairman Rudd's and Penny WRONG's underwear?
Answer. RED!

Just heard the funniest think in my entire life on a talkback radio program today.
The host allowed one of these fanatical followers of the Church of Al Gore to come on, just to illustrate how STUPID the caller really was.
During the course of the conversation the called actually stated that the GRASS WAS BROWN IN HIS BACKYARD BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE!
This is the extent of the mental intellect of these characters!
I rest my case!

Why do these devotees of Al Gore's new religion never mention when the grass is green or when it rains and attribute these things to global warming also?
It would make about as much sense!
Obviously it does not further their global warming brainwashing agenda to do so!

I think one of the things that needs looking into is the chemical in unleaded petrol that stops water molocules from binding together, havent you noticed the decline in steady rainfall since 86 when unleaded came out, plus the stuff causes cancer, Ampol said it did back then, plus Russia sprayed that stuff from airplanes to stop the rain spoiling the 60 th VE day cellerbrations in Moscow,
Of coarse humans are adding to warming, one million cars sold last year in Aust, come on now folks, all are air cooled, look at just how many cars alone operate world wide each day, most houses have air con, takes heat to make cool, the old houses were designed for our hot summers, new one's are not, you cannot even drive your car these days without it on, the designs are wrong,
They have finally found a way to tax the air we breath, now capt Blight is going to sell all our pine trees, guess what, no new one's will be planted, too expensive, all the timber processing is going to shut down because by the time the buyer sells the trees to make a profit they will be to expensive

i could go on forever but it isnt gunna change a damm thing,

GO Barnaby, kick backsides, ohh, people forget that Rudd and Swan helped Goss bankrupt Queensland

After reading the comments about the Brown Grass it's absolutely astounding to see how low the IQ's of the fanatical followers of this new global warming religion are!

I agree with the comments about the brown grass.
Totally ludicrous!

The stupidity of these global warming morons knows no bounds.
It's Summer people!
You know HOT and DRY!
It's called a normal Australian summer.
Brown grass is to be expected.
What planet do these people come from?
Grow a brain!

Climategate: ordering a better scare for Australia

Hi all,
have a read of this explosive article!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_ordering_a_better_scare_for_australia/

I just read this article about "Climategate: another smoking gun… ".

It's certain;ly food for thought.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019301/climategate-another-smoking-gun/

Out of the mouths of babes come a conniving adult’s words

The Copenhagen meeting opened with a video of terrified children begging adults to stop global warming. Green fanatic Clive Hamilton writes creepy letters to my children to make them scared, too. A crying 18-year-old confronts Canada’s chief negotiator at a Copenhagen briefing (?). The Age today publishes an op-ed allegedly written by a 17-year-old who says she is “scared” too, and wants “a climate agreement”.

There is something profoundly immoral about terrifiying children for a political cause, and something profoundly anti-intellectual in demanding adults then heed the children’s cries to settle immensely complex questions of science and economics.

This tactic alone suggests on which side of this debate reason lies.

Gore is grossly careless or a barefaced liar



AL Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle.

No way did these leaked emails discredit his global warming crusade, he assured Slate magazine.

And you’d trust him, wouldn’t you? Like you trust our own doom-preaching Tim Flannery, for all his false predictions, dodgy memory, vested interests and frequent flying hypocrisy.

Yes, you trust Gore, this Nobel Prize laureate and Oscar winner, when he tells you that the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit don’t in fact show that the world’s most influential climate scientists used “tricks” to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

You trust him when he also denies that they show this powerful clique of scientists destroying inconvenient data, committing fraud, censoring sceptical scientists and privately admitting to doubts about the warming theory they publicly scream is settled.

No way would Gore cover up such stuff in defending his warmist cause, right?

No way, even if a British judge did rule that his film An Inconvenient Truth contained at least nine very convenient untruths. No way, even if he’s now the first man to reportedly make $1 billion from the global warming scare he did so much to create.

So you would believe Gore when he now gives his word - his considered opinion - that the Climategate emails are “sound and fury signifying nothing”.

As he explained: “I haven’t read all the emails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.

“These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.”

Huh? Just in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue, here’s Gore again, dismissing the very idea of warmist scientists hiding data, as the emails actually revealed:

“I think it’s been taken wildly out of context ... An email exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway (in IPCC reports) is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.”

In fact, three times did Gore claim these 4000 Climategate emails and documents - leaked by a whistleblower - were of no account, being a decade old: “What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old emails kind of silly.” (Four times now: see video above.)

Fact-check time. Let’s see whether Gore’s word is worth a dime.

The truth is that the most recent Climategate email is from November 12, 2009 - just a month ago.

The email in which IPCC leader author Kevin Trenberth privately admits “we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” is dated October 12, 2009. Only two months ago.

The infamous email sent by CRU chief Phil Jones, ordering four other Climategate scientists to “delete any emails” that sceptics had asked to check, dates from just last year.

THEN there are the damning emails from Australian Climategate scientist Tom Wigley, in which he seems to me to choke on the deceit he’s witnessing. (He now denies this.)

In these emails Wigley privately blasts his colleagues and the IPCC for “dishonest presentations”, rightly suggests a university covered up an apparent fraud by a Climategate scientist, accuses another Climategate scientist of using “very deceptive” evidence, demands to know why dodgy data was used to falsely “prove” recent warming, and warns the Climategate conspiracy that “withholding data is still a hot potato” and “looks like hiding something”.

Every one of those Wigley emails was sent this year, and most within the past two months.

This is not stale correspondence but a lividly fresh scandal with devastating implications.

So now the questions.

How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all?

Was he lying or just grossly mistaken in telling you they were old news of no account?

What else has he got wrong - deliberately or otherwise - while terrifying the world about a warming that actually stopped, or paused, in 2001?

The fact is you have been lied to by many people for a long time, and the media has betrayed you by not holding the liars to account.

Too much is now at stake for us to tolerate the stifling of debate for an instant longer.

Australian climate records a mess too

And note that Australian records are a large part of what data we have about one half of the globe (the Southern half)

Australian weather records for an international database on climate change were a "bloody mess", riddled with entry errors, duplication and inaccuracies, leaked British computer files reveal. The Herald found the criticism in a 247-page specialist programmer's log, unearthed among the thousands of files hacked from East Anglia University, which is at the centre of a climate change email scandal. Labelled "HARRY-READ-ME", the log catalogues problems with the raw, historical climate data sent from hundreds of meteorological stations around the world.

The Australian data comes in for particular criticism as the programmer discovers World Meteorological Organisation codes are missing, station names overlap and many co-ordinates are incorrect. At one point the programmer writes about his attempts to make sense of the data. "What a bloody mess," he concludes. In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" In another he says: "Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data ... so many false references ... so many changes ... bewildering."

The log spans four years of work at the university's Climatic Research Unit, the British keeper of global temperature records. The programmer rails that the information has "no uniform integrity".

His criticisms relate solely to the construction of the database and do not question the validity of historical temperature records or analyses that suggest the impact of human activity on global warming trends. "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight."

Michael Coughlan, the head of the National Climate Centre at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said it was difficult to comment without knowing the source of the raw data. It was unlikely to have come directly from the bureau's centre because unchecked, raw data was rarely requested for climate analysis. The bureau had a network of more than 100 specially selected weather stations ["SELECTED"?? Selected on what grounds? Selected to be near urban heat islands? I'm betting that not many rural stations made the cut.] to monitor climate change, and a century of records from them had been checked. "We've put an enormous effort into developing a high-quality reliable climate record for Australia and all that data is freely available," Dr Coughlan said.

But he said that if the British programmer had been using raw weather data, which is sent around the world in real time for weather forecasting, it would not be surprising that it contained errors. This raw data could have come from countries other than Australia, and would have been difficult to correct without access to information in Australia, such as the original field books. "A computer programmer sitting in England won't have the resources to make those corrections. I can understand their frustrations," Dr Coughlan said. [That naughty raw data again]

The programmer's log is one of the most read files worldwide since the email archives were leaked. The log has been treated particularly sympathetically as it reveals his blow-by-blow frustrations, which seemed to be unfolding as his scientist colleagues, including the head of the Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, appeared to discuss via email ways to avoid freedom-of-information requests for raw data and to denigrate their critics. Professor Jones, who has denied a conspiracy to manipulate global warming statistics as "complete rubbish", has stood down from his post while the university investigates the leaks.

The Herald attempted to contact Professor Jones and spoke to the computer programmer we believe to be the author of the file. The programmer did not deny his name but referred queries to the university's media unit. Professor Jones has not responded. RealClimate, a website run by climate scientists, confirms the log as the work of a specialist charged with upgrading data.

"Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets, will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be," it says. [Tedious?? It sounds more than tedious. Try complete failure]

Barnaby,

The of whether 'climate change' is natural or industrial is one argument that will continue long after we're all dead and buried. I personally don't see the sense in the two camps firing at each other, surely the intelligent ones amongst them realise that you can't argue against the core beliefs - religions even - of the opposite camps.

Notwithstanding all of that, and forget about the cause, what are we doing about surviving climate change. I'm not talking about the 'hottest summer on record' type claims - I'm asking what are you as an elected representative putting forward as a way to deal with increasingly severe storms, floods and storm surges, droughts and all of the rest of it.

I dread the thought that the opposition has its head stuffed so firmly in the sand that its only focusing on attacking the government and green groups instead of acknowledging that your communities have been suffering, and will continue to unless we prepare for a worsening climate.

We don't want spin and criticism, we want you to earn the money you're being paid, listen to the experts where necessary, but start thinking about how this country is going to survive if agriculture goes completely down the chute as the arid areas spread further south and east until we only have vialbe production land east of the Great Divide.

Ann, There is NO UNBIASED EVIDENCE that the world or indeed Australia is experiencing increasing "severe storms, floods and storm surges, droughts and all of the rest of it."
What HAS changed is the media's DELIBERATE scaremongering brainwashing campaign of the gullible people of the world.
Do some of your own research on the subject and you will see this is the case.
Read about the CLIMATEGATE story on the internet.
There has been program by the media to skew people's perception on the weather by EXTREMLY BIASED REPORTING AND DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF CLIMATE DATA. The ABC(radio ALP) is a glaring example of this.
The whole idea is to manipulate people's emotions such that we feel guilty about supposedly destroying the environment (so called global warming) and thus are more COMPLIANT to paying huge extra traxes on EVERYTHING so that the world will be saved!
In reality this money will be sent off shore,
will destroy Australian's standard of living,
will not alter the temperature of the earth one iota,
will create carbon trading billionaires,
and will make third world desport regimes RICH!
BE VERY DUBIOUS OF WHAT YOU ARE FED THROUGH THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!

Spot the real denier


A denier has many tactics to stop people talking about evidence. The real deniers here are those pushing a fake crisis.
To stop discussion:

1. Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed. (Bad luck for Galileo and Einstein eh?) At the very least this slows down debate for up to a year, instead of discussing results that are right in front of us now.
2. Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist. (A flaw is a flaw, it doesn’t matter who points it out.)
3. If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals. (The climate IS what it IS, regardless of anything printed in any journal.)
4. They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper. (Then they claim that it’s not a single paper but a “body of work”. Which disagrees with point 1.)
5. Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence? Scientists don’t vote for natural laws. Science is not a democracy.
6. If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!” Other variations include, Delayer, Inactivist, Conspiracy Theorist, or Do-Nothing! Since they can’t back it up, this is baseless namecalling.
7. When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
8. Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
9. They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!

Peer review is done by two anonymous, unpaid colleagues.

You get what you pay for and peer review is free.

If a company were audited like this, by two anonymous unpaid friends, the SEC would be jailing people.

Who is the real denier?

Scaring Our Kids to Death (To Save the Planet)

by Bill Muehlenberg

December 9, 2009

The four-minute opening video at the Copenhagen Summit was a propaganda piece which would have made Goebbels proud. Entitled “Please Help the World,” it has all the hallmarks of a Hollywood end-of-the-world blockbuster. Loaded with emotional hysteria, moving imagery, and screaming children, it is indoctrination at its finest.

It finishes with the plaintive pleas of terrified little kids crying out “please help save the world”. After an impassioned video like this, complete with stirring music (heart-tugging strings, etc.), anyone would want to run out and do something immediately.

But that is exactly the problem with all this. In addition to scaring the life out of little children, it is content-free, image-soaked propaganda. The idea is to get you to forget about any rational discussion and debate about the science and social realities of the issue: it just pushes for an instant and emotion-based decision.

“We must do something” seems like the only appropriate response to such a barrage of guilt-tripping and emotional manipulation. It is a vacuous piece which does nothing to inform us and everything to scare us. Never mind that there is no scientific consensus on this issue, and that the Climategate revelations have thrown the whole matter up into the air.

Indeed, Climategate is the story of the decade, not the Copenhagen Cargo Cult. This story, which is being so assiduously avoided by the mainstream media, is “the climatology equivalent of discovering the bones of Jesus” as Cal Thomas puts it.

Yet our MSM prefers to wring its hands, falling for every bit of fear-mongering and propaganda that those at the Copenhagen junket can muster. And if the opening video is anything to go by, this entire conference is going to be one big farce which should henceforth be completely ignored.

Of course the targeting of children with bone-chilling propaganda is nothing new. The secular left is always presenting one doomsday scenario after another, seeking to persuade us to hand all of our freedoms and liberties over to the “experts” who will solve all our problems.

Thus we have had plenty of other ‘the end is nigh’ scenarios in the recent past. Remember the nuclear winter panic mongering, for example? For years our school kids were drilled with propaganda by the secular left that the world was about to go through a period of Armageddon brought on by the reckless use of nuclear weapons.

And America of course was at fault in all this. It was the nasty US which was holding the world to ransom with its stockpile of nuclear weapons. Never mind the actual truth that it was this nuclear capability which prevented another major war after WWII, and which eventually brought the Soviet Empire to its knees.

It was not the peaceniks and the nuclear winter panic merchants that did anything to empty the Gulag, but American Cruise missiles in Europe. It was that which brought down the Berlin Wall, and set the captives free.
Yet if the scare-mongers had had their way, the US would have unilaterally disarmed, and we would all now be living in the People’s Republic of the USSR.

And of course the Soviets had an absolutely appalling track record when it came to the environment. There would be no Copenhagen Summit now if the nuclear winter crowd had gotten its way. So here we have yet more of the same. Scare the heck out of the little kids, who in turn will nag their parents to “do something”. Anything.

Never mind if the evidence for man-made climate change seems to be getting thinner each passing week. Never mind that the Copenhagen Religion is simply about massive international transfers of wealth, and a grand attempt to do away with national sovereignty.

Never mind the mega-carbon footprint created by all the jet-setting politicians, bureaucrats and rock stars who will attend this gabfest. In the meantime it seems that local and imported prostitutes expect a roaring trade. Going by media reports, we may not save the planet but a lot of young women will find a solid week’s worth of work.

But whenever madness reigns, it always seems that a little spark of sanity breaks out somewhere. In this case, we had what can only be considered to be the providential expose known as Climatgate. Nothing takes the punch out of emotional hysteria like some good sound evidence.

And the evidence emerging from Climategate just gets better each passing day. It is the scientific equivalent of the daily discovery of yet more lovers from the Tiger Woods’ harem. Indeed, if the MSM were covering Climategate as thoroughly and energetically as they are covering Tigergate, the Copenhagen farce would have been forced to close two weeks ago.

But sadly it is going ahead, and sadly, it is using and manipulating children to push its agenda. I wait for the day when the MSM promotes an equally moving and emotive video, highlighting the ghastly nature of something like abortion for example. Somehow I don’t expect to see that soon.

However, as long as the alternative media is allowed freedom to present what the MSM will not, bogus religious festivals like the Copenhagen Summit will be subject to close and careful scrutiny. Sure, they will keep cranking out the propaganda pieces, but as Solzhenitsyn knew so very well, in the end, the truth will prevail.

"" Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed. (Bad luck for Galileo and Einstein eh?) ""

Of course not you idiot.

Einsteins work was peer reviewed and he awarded a Nobel Prize for it.
In Galileos time there was no peer reviewed journals - this proves nothing but your appalling ignorance of science

The ETS will not stand! A tax based on junk science and the opportunity for a massive global beauracracy that will run our lives, and we'll get to pay for it.
No Thanks.
If you're fighting this, you've got my support.

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a wrong and misleading paradigm. It fails on any serious conceptual audit. It would be more helpful to talk of warming and cooling gases. The data tells us that CO2 cannot be much of a warming gas and that extra CO2 probably has a tiny cooling effect. So what would be the ideal characteristics of a "warming gas".

Its only when we try and speak plain English and tighten up our definitions that we can see this matter clearly. And ideal warming gas would not have the characteristics of CO2. An ideal warming gas would be a lot heavier than air. CO2 is heavier than air but only a little bit. That advantage isn't going to amount to much. We would want CO2 to be heavier if we wanted it to be a net warmer. The other thing that stops CO2 from being an effective warming gas is it has three absorption regions and not only one. The lowest one is the one most talked about. The upper two tend to be forgotten. And really these two absorption regions are going to destroy CO2's chances of being an effective "warming gas" at our level of air pressure.

You see we know this because of how well CO2 is mixed in the atmosphere. CO2 stays at pretty much the same percentage pretty much up to 100 kilometres. For CO2 to be a warming gas it has to capture energy above your head, house and thermometer and transfer that energy down to where you are. For CO2 to be a threat it must lodge that energy deep in the ocean.

And ideal warming gas would sink even though it was warmer than the molecules around it. Evidently this doesn't happen with powerful effectiveness with CO2 or CO2 wouldn't be so evenly mixed up to around 100 kilometres.

Electromagentic radiation comes up from the ground. O2 and Nitrogen get hit be some of that and re-radiate the entirety of the spectrum. CO2 re-radiates the spectrum minus its absorption region. Right there we see the silliness of the greenhouse business. Since far from warming through back-radiation, in the first instance at least, the CO2 is hogging some of the spectrum. Thats a cooling effect right there. You see we would want the CO2 to hog some of the spectrum well above our house, head and thermometer and then transfer that energy downward.

Thats not going to happen in the daytime at least. Because the CO2 is hogging both incoming and outgoing. The molecules will warm more than most of the molecules around the CO2 molecules. And so the CO2 molecules that started where your head, house and thermometer are, will high-tail it out of there. Taking the energy they have hogged both ways with them.

"Heat rises" is perfectly fine English, no matter what your 9th grade science teacher told you. She was only trying to help you pass exams so don't take it too seriously. Heat rises for sure. But to the extent that this generalisation is overturned we are able to generate a heat budget in any given strata.

It might be that extra CO2 has a compensating warming effect in the night-time via a bit of extra air pressure. I don't see this possibility being addressed. It might be in the night-time, since CO2 is now only hogging energy from the ground, and CO2 being a little bit heavier than air, well there could be a bit of warming during the night as compensation for what you'd have to presume was a cooling effect during the day. But then the daytime cooling effect can be mitigated, or even reversed by overturning in the troposphere. This is far too complicated a scenario to figure out what the overall effect will be apriori. Apriori, prior to taking in account a possible increase in air pressure, then CO2 will be a net cooler during the day and a tiny warmer during the night. But this may not be so if overturning is a big enough part of this picture.

Obviously in a matter this complicated we have to rely on empiricism. Since there are so many countervailing forces. The wrong Greenhouse paradigm suggests that CO2 will be a net warmer but cannot tell us to what extent, and so we need the data. Under my paradigm its easier to see how the CO2 would be a net cooler. But I'd of course be open to correction on this because of the factor of overturning. So it had to come down to the data. And the data says there is no convincing evidence either way. With a slight bias towards the net cooling theory. But nothing significant.

Now thats just the effect of CO2 alone. But Richard Lindzen has just proved pretty convincingly that the earth reacts to ANY source of warming by mitigating it. Not by amplifying it. His was a straight input-output sort of experiment. He simply assumes that a doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by about 1 degree Celsius. I think that simple assumption is wrong but that doesn't alter the rest of his evidence which would seem to be quite decisive. The earth, for the most part, acts like a mitigater of extra heat being lodged into it. Negative feedbacks prevail totally under current arrangements.

The science is settled on this matter. One side refuses to come up with a problem worth addressing.

Hi Barnaby,
First, congratualations on your recent appointment.

There things I would ask you to consider, ETS and internet censorship.

While many are claiming that the Copenhagen gab-fest was a failure, this is only true if you were concerned with doing something constructive and practical to reduced pollution and "carbon emissions" and promote alternative energy.

Unfortunately the entire ETS was nothing more than a "Trojan Horse" to introduce a huge tax to fund a vague, unmonitorable UN run scheme.
Where the money will end up is anybodys guess but common sense tells us that it will never reach its intended target.

That Kevin Rudd went ahead and signed Australia up to this finalcial committment when the ETS scheme has not been passed by the Senate borders on treason and he must be taken to task on this.
This was the only reason he went to Copenhagen and he has achieved his goal despite what the mainstream media would have us believe.
Unfortunately most people rely on the mainstream media, so it's up to Mel and Kochie of Sunrise or Carl and Lisa to tell us how it really is. I don't think so.
The internet with all its flaws is the only source of uncensored information availabel and now moves are afoot to introduce censorship of the internet. While the initial proposals will seem innocuous enough, I have no doubt that it will be the thin end of the wedge. Once the censorship is in place, who can tell wher it will take us in the interest of national security. This can only play into the hands of those who would control every aspect of our lives.

Rather than promoting censorship, how about promoting personal responsability for ourselves and our own family members who are dependent of us.

I would also suggest that you promote your own website as a way of getting your message to the people. The internet is an incredibly powerful medium which can put you intouch with thousands in minutes and those who wish to censor it know this only too well.

My apologies for being so long winded but I genuinely feel that we are being take in a wrong direction on both these issues.

I wish you and your family a very happy and peaceful Chirstmas.

Mr Hand. If you think that CO2 warms anything then lets have your explanation in detail. I'll start you off and you pick it up at the molecular level.

The first part of this story is that the sun rises in the morning. It sends electromagnetic radiation at us and 40%+ of this radiation is infrared. CO2 has three absorption regions. CO2 Therefore absorbs some of that "light" and this therefore reduces the amount of joules that make it to seal level. So far thats a cooling effect. You pick it up from this point on if you think CO2 is a great big warmer.

There are more cooling effects and possibly some countervailing warming effects in this story. But if you think CO2 is a warmer lets hear the explanation from you.

robert s says: Kevin Rudd's ETS is not over until he has been banished
from the face of politics by the voters.
He has moulded his policies around this farce and therefore has nowhere to
go if he is defrocked of it.
He and his comrades in the labour party will continue to push until the voters stop them.
Please read on................


Who's in denial now?


By Kenneth P. Green, For The Calgary HeraldDecember 28, 2009

Responses to "Climategate"--the leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit -- remind me of the line "Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? That's because you're in denial."

Climate catastrophists like Al Gore and the UN's Rajendra Pachauri are downplaying Climategate: it's only a few intemperate scientists; there's no real evidence of wrongdoing; now let's persecute the whistleblower. In Calgary, the latest fellow trying to use the Monty Python "nothing to see here, move along" routine is Prof. David Mayne Reid, who penned a column last week denying the importance of Climategate.

Unfortunately for Reid, old saws won't work in the Internet age: Climategate has blazed across the Internet, blogosphere, and social networking sites. Even environmentalist and writer George Monbiot has recognized that the public's perception of climate science will be damaged extensively, calling for one of the Climategate ringleaders to resign.

What's catastrophic about Climategate is that it reveals a science as broken as Michael Mann's hockey stick, which despite Reid's protestations, has been shown to be a misleading chart that erases a 400-year stretch of warm temperatures (called the Medieval Warm Period), and a more recent little ice-age that ended in the mid-1800s. No amount of hand-waving will restore the credibility of climate science while holding onto rubbish like that.

Climategate reveals skulduggery the general public can understand: that a tightly-linked clique of scientists were behaving as crusaders. Their letters reveal they were working in what they repeatedly labelled a "cause" to promote a political agenda.

That's not science, that's a crusade. When you cherry-pick, discard, nip, tuck, and tape disparate bits of data into the most alarming portrayal you can in the name of a "cause," you're not engaged in science, but in the production of propaganda. And this clique tried to subvert the peer-review process as well. They attempted to prevent others from getting into peer reviewed journals -- thus letting them claim skeptic research wasn't peer-reviewed -- a convenient circular (and dishonest) way to discredit skeptics.

Finally, people know that a fish rots from its head. The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was considered the top climate research community. It was the source of a vast swath of the information then that was funnelled into the supposedly "authoritative" reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If scientific objectivity is corrupt at the top, there's every reason to think that the rot spreads through the entire body. And evidence suggests it has. A Russian think-tank recently revealed the climate temperature record compiled by the Climatic Research Unit cherry-picked data from only 25 per cent of Russia's climate monitoring sites, the sites closest to urban areas, biased by the urban heat island effect. The stations excluded data from 40 per cent of Russia's total land mass, which is 12.5 per cent of all the Earth's land mass.

Reid's indignation about Climategate is beyond ludicrous. "It is wrong," intones Reid, "to castigate people for things said in private, and often taken out of context." He equates the response to Climategate with a "lynch mob." Funny, the professor seems to have highly selective indignation; he is apparently unaware of the unremitting attacks on people skeptical of climate science or policy by climate scientists and politicians.

People skeptical of any aspect of climate change have long been called "deniers," an odious linkage with Holocaust denial, and various luminaries have called for them to be drowned, jailed, and tried for crimes against humanity. One prominent columnist called skepticism treason against the very Earth itself.

As for indignation about the release of private correspondence, where was Reid's indignation when Greenpeace, looking for something to spin into an incriminating picture, stole skeptic Chris Horner's trash? Where was his indignation a few years ago when scientist Steve Schroeder showed a routine letter of mine to another climate scientist (Andrew Dessler), who posted it to the Internet where it was spun into the scurrilous accusation that I was trying to bribe UN scientists? Reid's indignation is the chutzpah of a man who kills his family then wants pity because he's an orphan.

The Climategate scandal, like others in biology and medicine erodes the credibility of both the scientists involved, and the institution of scientific research. And it should: it has become evident that there is a lot of rot going on in the body of science, and too little effort made to fix it.

A start could be made. They should start by practicing the scientific method: release all data, and release all assumptions and methods used to process the data at the time of publication. Make it available to researchers (even lay researchers) who are outside the clique so the work can be checked. Had the researchers involved in Climategate done this from the beginning, instead of circling their wagons and refusing to allow outsiders to check their work, they would have taken less hectoring. As a bonus for them, Climategate would never have happened.

Former IPCC reviewer Kenneth P. Green, has his doctorate in environmental sci ence and engi neering and is an Advisor to the Frontier Center for Public Polic y, ( www.fcpp.org).Green is a Resident Scholar at the Americ an Enterprise Institute.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

robert s says: Kevin Rudd's ETS is not over until he has been banished
from the face of politics by the voters.
He has moulded his policies around this farce and therefore has nowhere to
go if he is defrocked of it.
He and his comrades in the labour party will continue to push until the voters stop them.
Please read on................


Who's in denial now?


By Kenneth P. Green, For The Calgary HeraldDecember 28, 2009

Responses to "Climategate"--the leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia and its Climatic Research Unit -- remind me of the line "Are your feet wet? Can you see the pyramids? That's because you're in denial."

Climate catastrophists like Al Gore and the UN's Rajendra Pachauri are downplaying Climategate: it's only a few intemperate scientists; there's no real evidence of wrongdoing; now let's persecute the whistleblower. In Calgary, the latest fellow trying to use the Monty Python "nothing to see here, move along" routine is Prof. David Mayne Reid, who penned a column last week denying the importance of Climategate.

Unfortunately for Reid, old saws won't work in the Internet age: Climategate has blazed across the Internet, blogosphere, and social networking sites. Even environmentalist and writer George Monbiot has recognized that the public's perception of climate science will be damaged extensively, calling for one of the Climategate ringleaders to resign.

What's catastrophic about Climategate is that it reveals a science as broken as Michael Mann's hockey stick, which despite Reid's protestations, has been shown to be a misleading chart that erases a 400-year stretch of warm temperatures (called the Medieval Warm Period), and a more recent little ice-age that ended in the mid-1800s. No amount of hand-waving will restore the credibility of climate science while holding onto rubbish like that.

Climategate reveals skulduggery the general public can understand: that a tightly-linked clique of scientists were behaving as crusaders. Their letters reveal they were working in what they repeatedly labelled a "cause" to promote a political agenda.

That's not science, that's a crusade. When you cherry-pick, discard, nip, tuck, and tape disparate bits of data into the most alarming portrayal you can in the name of a "cause," you're not engaged in science, but in the production of propaganda. And this clique tried to subvert the peer-review process as well. They attempted to prevent others from getting into peer reviewed journals -- thus letting them claim skeptic research wasn't peer-reviewed -- a convenient circular (and dishonest) way to discredit skeptics.

Finally, people know that a fish rots from its head. The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was considered the top climate research community. It was the source of a vast swath of the information then that was funnelled into the supposedly "authoritative" reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If scientific objectivity is corrupt at the top, there's every reason to think that the rot spreads through the entire body. And evidence suggests it has. A Russian think-tank recently revealed the climate temperature record compiled by the Climatic Research Unit cherry-picked data from only 25 per cent of Russia's climate monitoring sites, the sites closest to urban areas, biased by the urban heat island effect. The stations excluded data from 40 per cent of Russia's total land mass, which is 12.5 per cent of all the Earth's land mass.

Reid's indignation about Climategate is beyond ludicrous. "It is wrong," intones Reid, "to castigate people for things said in private, and often taken out of context." He equates the response to Climategate with a "lynch mob." Funny, the professor seems to have highly selective indignation; he is apparently unaware of the unremitting attacks on people skeptical of climate science or policy by climate scientists and politicians.

People skeptical of any aspect of climate change have long been called "deniers," an odious linkage with Holocaust denial, and various luminaries have called for them to be drowned, jailed, and tried for crimes against humanity. One prominent columnist called skepticism treason against the very Earth itself.

As for indignation about the release of private correspondence, where was Reid's indignation when Greenpeace, looking for something to spin into an incriminating picture, stole skeptic Chris Horner's trash? Where was his indignation a few years ago when scientist Steve Schroeder showed a routine letter of mine to another climate scientist (Andrew Dessler), who posted it to the Internet where it was spun into the scurrilous accusation that I was trying to bribe UN scientists? Reid's indignation is the chutzpah of a man who kills his family then wants pity because he's an orphan.

The Climategate scandal, like others in biology and medicine erodes the credibility of both the scientists involved, and the institution of scientific research. And it should: it has become evident that there is a lot of rot going on in the body of science, and too little effort made to fix it.

A start could be made. They should start by practicing the scientific method: release all data, and release all assumptions and methods used to process the data at the time of publication. Make it available to researchers (even lay researchers) who are outside the clique so the work can be checked. Had the researchers involved in Climategate done this from the beginning, instead of circling their wagons and refusing to allow outsiders to check their work, they would have taken less hectoring. As a bonus for them, Climategate would never have happened.

Former IPCC reviewer Kenneth P. Green, has his doctorate in environmental sci ence and engi neering and is an Advisor to the Frontier Center for Public Polic y, ( www.fcpp.org).Green is a Resident Scholar at the Americ an Enterprise Institute.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

I am asking you to continue to vote NO to the proposed ETS legislation being put to parliament this week.

It is clear the science of AGW is flawed and is unproven. Therefore, it would be both premature and irresponsible for the Australian Government to proceed with passing legislation to raise a new tax. The tax is to pay for the very expensive initiatives to be introduced to combat so-called Global Warming.

Many more discrepancies have been found in the IPCC report since the legislation was first introduced to parliament. The report has been discredited.

Countries have the power to induce fundamental changes. One way of motivating people is by offering them ways to save money, yet not all governments have exploited the potential of the taxation system to change behaviour to greener patterns. Governments can, for example, introduce carbon taxes on the use of fossil fuels. They can impose taxes on the extraction and production of minerals, energy and timber and structure them to support more climate-friendly practices