The Nationals LNP

Photo Gallery
Community Switch
This week's rainfall
Barnaby's Blog
 

Barnaby's Blog

12

Life changed for the media this week with the announcement by Tony Abbott of the new Opposition front bench. As I have discovered, what I said as the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate attracts more attention when said from a position in the Coalition's Shadow Cabinet. Everyone from the Prime Minister down is listening and telling me what I can and cannot say. This is what I told the media after our first Shadow Cabinet meeting in Sydney on Friday:  ''In a way it's kind of convenient because every time I get a difficult question I can say, well that's a view of shadow cabinet which I can't discuss.''

Saturday’s newspapers and online websites have carried more commentary than a Rudd Government White Paper. Laurie Oakes is one to always take seriously but even he is looking to a greater power for some explanations with this Opinion piece – Some politicians are off the planet - in the Herald Sun.

A WHILE ago I heard a radio interview with a retiring editor of one of the mass-market US newspapers.

Asked about some of the big stories he'd published over the years, he referred with particular pride to a front-page scoop about space aliens disguised as humans living on Earth.

It included the claim that there were 16 aliens in the US Senate. An outraged senator phoned to protest. There were not 16 aliens among his colleagues, the senator said. There were 24.

That got me wondering how many aliens we've got in our Parliament. Some are obvious, of course.

Kevin Rudd gives himself away every time he lapses into Klingon at question time or at news conferences.

Peter Garrett? Hardly disguised at all.

Tony Abbott is betrayed by ears that Star Trek's Mr Spock would die for.

But when Abbott, elevated to the Liberal leadership, unveiled his new front bench, it was immediately clear that we could easily match the Yanks, alien for alien.

Eric Abetz, the hardliner's hardliner, is a political Dalek. Nick Minchin obviously comes from another planet - one where there is no global warming caused by human activity.

Film buffs will recall the 1985 movie Cocoon, about a group of elderly people rejuvenated by aliens. It is the only plausible explanation for the resurrection of Bronwyn Bishop, Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews.

Climate spokesman Greg Hunt must have been taken over by some kind of shape-shifting organism similar to The Thing from Outer Space.

How else to explain how a strong believer in the need to put a price on carbon (he wrote his university thesis on it) can become a harsh critic of the whole idea overnight?

And then there's National Party Senate leader Barnaby Joyce. His first few days as shadow finance minister were enough to convince quite a few of his Liberal colleagues - those wanting to preserve the economic legacy of John Howard and Peter Costello - that he is definitely an alien life form.

Laurie continued, but did not identify which alien life form I am, only that I am an alien. So if any of you have any thoughts…

From media tart to a force to be reckoned with – the heading in The Sydney Morning Herald is obviously because I live in Queensland - has Peter Hartcher summing up the year: As 2009 comes to a close, ask yourself who have been Australia's most influential political leaders this year. Kevin Rudd, certainly, but who's next on the list?

I nominate Barnaby Joyce. From the time he was elected to the Senate in 2004 until last week, the media and political mainstream refused to take him seriously. It's easy to see why… But Joyce has now upgraded from maverick to force majeure.

Consider what he achieved, almost single-handedly, this year. To start with, he gave the National Party new purpose and identity in rejecting the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme.

I am a regular contributor to The Punch and today David Penberthy has chosen to compare me with Bob Dylan in Barnaby knock knock knockin’ on Kevin’s door. Aliens maybe, but Bob Dylan, that’s a higher life form. Dave wrote: Joyce has now written seven opinion pieces for our website The Punch and the marvellous thing about all of them is that you could buy a pack of Gitanes, slip into your skivvy and beret, and recite random passages aloud in a Soho coffee shop with Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue playing in the background, and the critics would hail you as the greatest beat poet since Ginsberg.

He also made this interesting point: Joyce has had three different press secretaries working for him in the past 12 months but his opinion pieces and press releases have maintained the same tone throughout. Either he employs good mimics or he writes them all himself; I suspect it is the latter.

The author of this blog thanks you,

Barnaby

Posted in: Blog
Actions: E-mail | Permalink

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Enter the code shown above:

Comments

# Michael
Saturday, December 12, 2009 5:22 PM
what Kevin Rudd and co doesn't want you to know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9t2Jrvne4
# Michael
Saturday, December 12, 2009 5:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9t2Jrvne4
# Jjannie
Saturday, December 12, 2009 9:39 PM
Dads Army in crisis




Rebellious Joyce slapped back into line
MICHELLE GRATTAN
December 12, 2009


Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has slapped down new Opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce over his comments on debt and banking.

Mr Hockey said the senator was wrong to claim Australian states and the US Government might default on debts, and that his comments on banks and Chinese investment were not policy.

Mr Hockey stressed that he, not the outspoken Nationals senator, was in charge of Opposition policy on foreign investment and banking.

As Kevin Rudd pilloried the Opposition over Senator Joyce's provocative comments, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott read his frontbench the riot act about discipline at its first meeting.

The Nationals' Senate leader had spoken out about the dangers of the US Government and Australian states defaulting on debt. He warned that if the US defaulted it would cause an ''economic Armageddon''. He urged a tougher approach to the banks and a harder line against Chinese investment in Australian resources.

Mr Abbott said he had told frontbenchers at yesterday's meeting that ''shadow ministry and shadow cabinet solidarity starts now … Everyone understands that and everyone will play by the team tactic, play by the team rules.''

Asked whether state governments could default, Mr Abbott said it was ''very important that we have sound public finances''.

Mr Hockey said Senator Joyce's comments were not Coalition policy.

''He's not responsible for foreign investment [policy] - I am,'' Mr Hockey said, adding that the Opposition had no plans to change banking regulation. ''We put in place [under the Howard government] the best financial services regulation in the world - it's globally recognised as the best financial services regulation - I helped put it in place.''

Mr Hockey said there was no evidence that any Australian states or the US were in danger of defaulting on loans.

Senior Liberals are anxious to take an early tough line against Senator Joyce, because his loose comments play into the Government's hands and damage the Opposition's economic credentials.

Mr Hockey and Senator Joyce had separate talks after the frontbench meeting. Senator Joyce said after the shadow ministry meeting: ''In a way it's kind of convenient because every time I get a difficult question I can say, well that's a view of shadow cabinet which I can't discuss.''

Mr Rudd said: ''To have the finance spokesman of the alternative government of Australia saying that one of our states could default - this is gross economic irresponsibility, policy on the run, shooting from the lip.

''There is a reputational interest here for Australia, whatever side of politics you're on … to defend the Australian economic interest.''

Source: The Age
# Jjannie
Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:54 PM
More trouble in Dads Army


OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has told Barnaby Joyce to toe the line after the new frontbencher came under fire for suggesting the US and Queensland could go broke.

Senator Joyce, who last week took on the finance portfolio, caused headlines yesterday with his warning that the US could trigger an "economic Armageddon" by defaulting on its debts.

The Queensland senator also suggested the State Government did not have the capacity to repay its borrowings.

The maverick Nationals senator was lambasted yesterday by state and federal Labor figures who accused him of "irresponsible thought bubbles" and "outrageous" claims.

Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser denied the state had debt troubles and said Senator Joyce's fledgling frontbench career had commenced in "a blaze of stupidity".

"They are arrant nonsense from the person who pretends to be the alternative finance minister," Mr Fraser said. "Looks like Barnaby Joyce is determined to embarrass us as the worst shadow minister in 150 years with these outrageous, baseless, ill-informed and disloyal comments."

Debt levels in Queensland are predicted to hit $85.5 billion by 2013 and Premier Anna Bligh said yesterday that the state had a clear debt reduction strategy in place.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Australia and its states had strong credit ratings and warned that Senator Joyce's comments could spook international financial markets.

"You want someone in a national position of responsibility broadcasting to the international financial markets a view that state and territory governments could default? I mean, there are basic interests for Australia at stake here," Mr Rudd said.

As the Prime Minister called on the Opposition Leader to rein in his finance spokesman, Mr Abbott was hosting the first meeting of his shadow cabinet.

Emerging from the meeting, Mr Abbott said he had read the rules to his new team. "Shadow ministry and shadow cabinet solidarity starts now," he said.
Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:53 PM

Well I always thought Kevvie looked like an onion,
although when he narrows his eyes and his little lips go thin then he looks a bit alienish.
Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:00 AM
On the question of US debt, I think the Chinese are worried if Obama's good for the money as well........

I think it would be advisable for a que to form, just in case!

Never mind Barney, they cant say you didnt try to warn them can they,
typical reaction !
# Dan
Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:02 AM
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/12.09/outrage.html
Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:12 AM
I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY THIS TO A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL PARTY (AS i AM A SUPPORTER OF ONE NATION) BUT BARNABY JOYCE, YOUR ALRIGHT.ETS IS A FURPHY JUST LIKE THE Y2K BUG THAT WAS GOING TO BRING THE WORLD TO A SCREECHING HALT, "CLIMATE CYCLE " NOT "CLIMATE CHANGE" HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THIS PLACE CAME INTO BEING, GET OVER IT RUDD, AUSTRALIA AND MOST AUSTRALIANS CANNOT AFFORD THIS FIASCO, JUST SO THE INSULATION COMPANIES ETC, ETC CAN MAKE A KILLING SELLING BATTS.KEEPING FIGHTING THE FIGHT MR. JOYCE THE PENSIONERS, LOW INCOME FAMILIES, FARMERS AND RESOURCE COMPANIES OF AUSTRALIA NEED YOU TO KEEP THIS MADNESS AWAY FROM OUR SHORES. REGARDS GREG JERRICK WAGGA NSW.
# Jjannie
Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:28 AM
"a selfish little boy who can speak Chinese. I'm so smart, just let me show you. I speak Mandarin. Well, woopdy doo, so do 1.3 billion Chinese,"


How old is Joyce ...........12????
What an ignorant underachieving hick
Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:58 AM


Barnaby, keep going at them.

The reaction by the Libs was predictable. Speak the truth and they run a mile. From now on I am worried that you, the one person with the guts to tell it like it is, will just give up.

# Jim Thompson
Monday, December 14, 2009 6:17 AM
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE WHICH DEMONSTRATES WHAT THIS IPCC CHAIRMAN REALLY THINKS OF US!

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman IPCC - Let the peasants walk
=====================================


A hairshirt lecture from above - as in 35,000 feet above, in business class:

" Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world’s leading climate scientist has told the Observer.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of “sustainable consumption” was now urgently required, he said."

Of course, this new asecetic lifestyle cannot possibly be imposed on a man as grand as Pachauri, with such crucial work to do to save us from the gases he belches out the back of his jet:

" I recently examined a UN document entitled ”Details of Outreach Activities carried out by Chairman IPCC, Dr. R. K. Pachauri Jan ‘07 July ‘08?

Dr Rajendra Pachauri flew at least 443,243 miles on IPCC business in this 19 month period. This business included honorary degree ceremonies, a book launch and a Brookings Institute dinner, the latter involving a flight of 3500 miles."

Add to his business flights this example of “sustainable consumption”:

"So strong is his love for cricket that his colleagues recall the time the Nobel winner took a break during a seminar in New York and flew in to Delhi over the weekend to attend a practice session for a match before flying back. Again, he flew in for a day, just to play that match. "

Jonathan Foreman also wonders whether Pachauri has urged the guests at his global warming party next week to avoid catching those sinful planes:

"The Copenhagen summit next week will generate vast quantities of hot air. It will see 16,500 people coming in from 192 countries. That amounts to 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006. Also, the organisers will lay 900 kilometres of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink 200,000 cups of coffee — at least that will be organic. "

(Thanks to reader Debbie.)

UPDATE

Meanwhile Pachauri becomes a denier of scientific corruption occuring right under his nose:

" Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007....

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said....

Pachauri was responding to one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: “I can’t see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists’ intended actions, but said: “I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet...” "

So when Pachauri reads IPCC scientists saying they’ll “keep ... out” sceptical papers from, the IPCC, he thinks that’s unclear? Just “indiscreet” wording?

And how can he be so confident that such bias was kept out of the IPCC when, for instance, Climategate scientist Michael Mann, another IPCC author, managed to insert his now discredited “hockey stick” graph into the third IPCC report to falsely “prove” the world hadn’t been warmer in thousands of years?

How can he be so confident that bias didn’t infect the whole process, when another IPCC author and Climategate scientist, Kevin Trenberth, was privately admitting that the real-world data wasn’t matching the IPCC models on which global warming theory is based:

" ...where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. "

UPDATE 2

Reader Charles says as recently as last month Trenberth. a leading expert in climate models, was privately admitting other Climategate scientists to huge uncertainties in them - caused by the fact that the world wasn’t behaving as they’d predicted:

" How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless... "

UPDATE 3

No Senator who votes for Kevin Rudd’s great green tax on everything can later claim they had no idea the world wasn’t actually warming as the global warmists predicted. Family First Senator Steve Fielding confronted them in the Senate with the evidence.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/let_the_peasants_walk/
# Ann Johnstone
Monday, December 14, 2009 6:34 AM
Climategate: Associated Press(AP) asks believers to give the all clear
Andrew Bolt – Monday, December 14, 09 (12:05 am)

Why doesn’t AP just cut out the middleman and publish the Climategate scientists’ press releases?

The middleman in this case is the notorious alarmist Seth Borenstein, who claims to have exhaustively reviewed the Climategate emails with his famously dispasionate eye:

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009

“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”

But the very same emails show just how very cosy Borenstein is to these same Climategate scientists, asking them for ammunition against a sceptical paper and a sceptic he accuses of “hyping wildly”:

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth

Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454

Anthony Watts explains why Borenstein should be sacked as science reporter.

In pooh-poohing the significance of the emails, Borenstein and his colleagues betray time and again their agenda. For instance:

One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit… McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is “substantially retired” from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Borenstein is sure the Climategate emails don’t amount to much because he asked global warming believers if they now admitted they were wrong. Not surprisingly, he got precisely the answer you might expect:

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

Who are those three “moderates”?

One is Gerald North, who seems from this 2000 quote to be a full-fledge warmist who doubts there was a Medieval Warming Period:

Climatologist Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station, who does greenhouse detection work but has not been involved in the IPCC process, is more confident: “There are too many independent pieces of evidence, and there’s not a single piece of contradictory evidence,” he says. North is particularly impressed by the 1000-year temperature records. “The planet had been cooling slowly until 120 years ago, when, bam!, it jumps up,” he says. “We’ve been breaking our backs on [greenhouse] detection, but I found the 1000-year records more convincing than any of our detection studies” using climate models.

Second is oceanographer Gabriel Vecchi, who, while doubting the warmists’ claims of worse hurricanes due to global warming, in 2006 declared himself a believer in the man-made warming theory:

This important system has weakened by 3.5 percent over the last 140 years, and the culprit is probably human-induced global warming, scientists reported in the current edition of the journal Nature. ”This is the impact of humans through burning coal, burning benzene, gasoline, everything,” said Gabriel Vecchi of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and an author of the study. “It’s principally the greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel burning.”

The third “moderate” is not named by Borenstein and his co-authors, so his existence and supposed moderation must be taken on trust. We must also trust that Borenstein showed all three scientists the most damning of the emails, and the context necessary to understand them.

But as you consider whether Borenstein deserves that trust, note how he characterises in his article his fishing for something negative from the Climategate scientists to counter a paper that he complained a sceptic was “hyping wildly”

The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.

Not “a” as in “any” reaction, Seth. What you sought was a very particular one. And once again you got just what you were after.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
# Ann Johnstone
Monday, December 14, 2009 7:39 AM
Brave New Green World

by Merv Bendle

December 13, 2009

As the Copenhagen conference unfolds it is possible to detect the outlines of the grim future dystopia that will emerge if the stealthy and remorseless proponents of global eco-fascism are allowed to remake our world in their image. Consequently, the opportunity exists for an artistic and literary critique of the Brave New Green World these fanatics wish to impose on us all.

Once again we face the totalitarian temptation that has bedevilled modern history, that all-encompassing will-to-power that possesses ideological fanatics and drives them to transform themselves (and all of us) into mere components of a great Totality, an immense unified and holistic system where every person becomes an obedient and unquestioning functionary mobilized in the pursuit of a single goal, an ultimate solution: in the twentieth century entire generations were sacrificed to ensure the triumph of the race, the Volk, the people, or the proletariat; in the twenty-first century similar demands are being made for sacrifices on a mass scale to appease the earth goddess Gaia, conceived as the wrathful, relentless, unyielding, and omnipresent source of all life, value and meaning. Gaia – She who must be appeased.

In such a time of acute danger there is a crucial need for imaginative virtuosity, for writers and artists who can capture in words and visions the inherent madness of such a monstrous quest. In the past, when earlier incarnations of totalitarianism lurched onto the stage of history, courageous voices exposed and denounced the logic of domination that drove the totalizing ideologies of communism, Nazism, fascism, and socialism. Writers like Evgeny Zamiatin, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Arthur Koestler, and Ayn Rand depicted with chilling imaginative genius the regimes that totalitarian apparatchiks lusted to impose upon the world. In books such as We, 1984, Brave New World, Darkness of Noon, and Atlas Shrugged, they laid out in detail the inherently destructive tendencies of such hyper-centralized collectivist regimes, only, of course, to be denounced by the supine Western intelligentsia as renegades and reactionaries.

Unfortunately, at the present time, similar writers have not yet appeared to combat the latest eco-apocalyptic manifestation of the totalitarian temptation. At precisely the moment when we need an Orwell to remind us that “one does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship” (1984), we are subjected to endless Green propaganda in every form of the media, exemplified by the offensive and inane video that began the Copenhagen conference, recalling in its exploitative appeal to children the cynical propaganda techniques of the Nazis and the Soviets.

Nevertheless, the basic lineaments of the Brave New Green World are beginning to emerge and some of the more obvious themes for imaginative exploration can briefly be noted. To begin with, the Green future will follow traditional totalitarian practice and impose a massively bureaucratized existence upon us all, with ultimately every single human action being monitored, measured, and assessed – not this time for their real or imagined subversive effect on the Volk or the Party, but rather for their supposed toxic impact on the environment, conceived as the omnipresent body of Gaia, whose purity cannot be defiled by unauthorized human activity.

It will also be a newly pagan world, where the great monotheisms have been torn down and denounced as patriarchal sky-gods in a campaign of eco-iconoclasm. Such religions will be depicted as destructive and disrespectful of Gaia, and as mere projections of human hubris, arrogance, and presumption that dared to propose that human beings could aspire to transcendence over the material world. Christianity, in particular, will be suppressed or tolerated only in some mutated form as an eco-friendly cult amenable to the ruling regime, with leaders who mouth politically correct platitudes and homilies. In the place of these once great spiritual traditions there will be a ramshackle ‘parliament of religions’, embracing a realm of earth deities, totemism, animism, nature worship, and sacrifices, culminating in the cult of the earth goddess Gaia, built around mindless subservience to the amoral brute forces of nature that humans will be required to worship and obey.

It will also be a Darwinian world. At best, the human species will be barely tolerated and reduced to the status of merely another animal battling for survival within a self-imposed legal and political system that requires it to yield to every parrot, slug, toad, or beetle that takes up residence in the vicinity of some useful resource. At worst, humanity will be depicted as an evolutionary dead-end, an unsuccessful experiment in sentience that has become a malignancy that the wrathful Gaia will shortly suffocate and excrete from Her system.

It is likely also to be a very postmodern world, where truth is entirely relative to the requirements of the regime; knowledge is valued only for the power it bestows; science is collapsed into ideology; and politics is simply an exercise in the manipulation of images and emotions. At the level of the global masses, it will be a realm of intense resentment and envy, where nations that have been betrayed by their leaders and have made nothing of their human and natural resources will clamour to denounce, steal, dissipate, and destroy the wealth of those countries that have laboured for centuries to make something of their opportunities. And at the heart of the system there will be the vast administrative apparatus of fiercely committed eco-bureaucrats, possessed by visions of the eco-apocalypse, and committed to stifling all scepticism and dissent in the name of Gaia. Above all, there will be no aspirations towards excellence and transcendence of the material realm - and to even imagine such an ideal will be a crime. Instead, there will only be the profound ordinariness deemed appropriate for a wicked species in well-deserved decline.

Above all, the coming eco-dystopia will be a fanatically anti-humanistic world, a regime where the tremendous achievements of humanity are not merely forgotten but actively suppressed and erased from memory in a global act of psychic repression that will allow the implementation of a new Dark Green Age, within which vast new systems of social control can be imposed. In this near future dystopia, a new Green mythology of history will be promulgated, and human potential will not only be denied but denounced as a dangerous delusion to which no one can be allowed to aspire. In particular, the heroism of humanity’s ascent from primordial poverty to technological virtuosity will be demonized and will survive only as a repressed memory to be constantly monitored and eventually expunged. Ominously, our education system is already designed to ensure such an outcome.

These are dark themes – inklings of a future that may well come to pass - but hopefully they will soon be excelled in works of imaginative genius that this new age of totalitarian threat demands. As the great seer, W. B. Yeats, so brilliantly prophesied, a great rough beast is indeed rising up, struggling to take shape and to impose its shadow upon us all. Clearly, the worst remain full of passionate intensity, and those that would resist must once again call upon all their conviction.

To paraphrase Orwell in 1984: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a gumboot stamping on a human face – forever”.
# Jeff Mears
Monday, December 14, 2009 7:42 AM
Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam


Shell Oil and British Petroleum express their vehement support for a global carbon tax in “Copenhagen Communiqué”

The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.

Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.

The emails reveal that the CRU was also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil, under its former identity as Esso.

“Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” asks Anthony Watts. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”

A “Copenhagen Communiqué” put out by leaders of over 500 global corporations in advance of this week’s summit calls for drastic measures on behalf of developed countries to “de-carbonise their economies” – a move that would completely devastate living standards and lead to gargantuan levels of unemployment.

The communiqué also demands that a global carbon tax be implemented via a carbon trading system. Bear in mind that the very people calling for such a system are the same people who will benefit from it to the tune of billions, as we shall explore later.

The statement calls for, “Measures to deliver a robust global greenhouse gas emissions market in order to provide the most effective, efficient and equitable emission reductions. It would be comprised of a growing series of national or regional “cap-and-trade” markets linked together, in which the “caps” are brought down in line with the targets that have been adopted for emission reduction.” The document also states that CO2 emissions need to be reduced by a staggering 50-85% by 2050, a process that would return humanity to a near stone age level of development.

And who are the radicals calling for such severe measures in the name of fighting the evil life giving gas that humans exhale and plants breathe? Greenpeace? Al Gore? Namely – James Smith, chairman of UK Shell Oil, Tony Hayward, Group Chief Executive, British Petroleum, along with hundreds of other global corporate giants, many of whom are directly tied in with big oil, and central banks who, far from bankrolling climate change skeptics, are directly invested in the scam of human-induced global warming.

A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax. According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.

In a speech earlier this year, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric. “It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.

Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.” Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was subsequently restated by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
# Brian Smith
Monday, December 14, 2009 10:22 AM
CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. So why do we have to pay for it's control? There is no evidence of it's ill affect on our existence here on our planet Earth. Sure there has been evidence of some weather changes and some of our icebergs are melting, so what? If the doomsayers care to look back about two centuries they will find that that was about the time the last mini ice age ended. Yes, the last mini ice age. There have been many ice ages and many higher temperature episodes recorded.
As a dedicated cynic I can only say, yes go on Kevin keep them frightened at least that way the great uneducated mob will actually listen to you.
Hey! it worked for Paul, at least for a time anyway.
# Jeff Mears
Monday, December 14, 2009 12:28 PM
Senator Ron Boswell's media update:-

11 December 2009

WONG’S SHIPPING AND AVIATION LEVY TO HURT AUST INDUSTRY
==========================================


“Reports from Copenhagen that Australia supports a levy on shipping and aviation to assist climate aid for developing countries should be immediately clarified by Minister Wong,” said The Nationals’ Senator Ron Boswell today.

“There is apparently a joint proposal between Australia, Norway, Mexico and the UK that proposes such a levy.”

“Australia is a trading nation a long way away from most of our export destinations. If an international levy on shipping is implemented we will suffer far more than other countries. It will be another black mark on our competitiveness as it adds yet another cost to our goods.”

“Tourism in Australia will also suffer as flights here will become more expensive than other destinations closer to Europe and North America.”

“I asked Minister Wong in Parliament on 15 September whether the government supported this levy policy and she would not give a straight answer.”

“A levy on shipping and aviation is not in Australia’s interests. It makes Australia suffer more than our trading partners and competitors. This has never been discussed with the Australian people.”

“This proposal to hurt Australian jobs and business has been worked on secretly without open political debate. It is a shocker and shows that the Rudd government can not be trusted to tell Australians what is going on or look after their interests.”

“The Rudd government climate policy is designed purely for the world stage. It takes no mind of jobs and business back home.”

# Pete
Monday, December 14, 2009 2:32 PM
Ah Barnaby, Joe telling you not to rock the boat, what would he know? Both china and the U.S. Are teetering over the abyss, you are right on the money with your comments, it may not happen for a while but the massive debt will not go away and printing more money only continues to de-value the $US. Buy gold young man and look forward to saying I told you so.
Frankly I hope we are both wrong, but history tells me otherwise.
# Anthony Accountant
Monday, December 14, 2009 3:42 PM
The US debt situation is extreme - not Barnaby.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/11/we-broke-the-bank
# Ron Jones
Monday, December 14, 2009 5:28 PM
Global weather dataset being systematically corrupted


For the past six days, several climate scientists have discovered an alarming trend: clear evidence of alteration of historical data at weather stations around the world, in order to support the contention of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

READ MORE HERE:-

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-weather-dataset-being-systematically-corrupted
# Ron Jones
Monday, December 14, 2009 5:55 PM
British officials cover up wind farm noise report

Coverups are the name of the game for the Green/Left

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
# Rebecca Monroe
Monday, December 14, 2009 6:17 PM
Climategate: One Must Ignore 200 Years of Observations to Believe in AGW by David Bellamy

There is no evidence of carbon dioxide being a poison, or that it is capable of causing a warming Armageddon. What follows is a summary of the proof — straight from real science, peer-reviewed over the past 232 years by legions of physicists, thanks to Newton’s Principia.

READ THE REST HERE:-
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4634&linkbox=true&position=10
Monday, December 14, 2009 6:30 PM
That story is extremely disturbing,but not surprising, thanks for the link.

As Rudd is an extremely secretive man, my worry is what are he and Wong
going to sign us up to without our knowledge, and can he bypass the Reps and Senate.
Will we wake up one morning and find most of our soveriegnity signed away,as the Brits did?
If we had a pM that loved our country I would worry less, but I dont feel that we have that protection,
I seldom watch TV anymore, so sick of the GW hype and photos of smoking
chimney stacks,
# linda macri
Monday, December 14, 2009 10:20 PM
MR JOYCE
I wondered how long you could with hold the restraints,, gagging ,, great to see you are fighting fit.
Great article , but beyond all the smoke and mirrors , what of Peter Spencer.
By ignoring the issue will not sweep it under the carpet this time, Peter has grown wise over the years as we all have, in oyher words the people of australia are speaking are you with them or against them.
Rudd does not have the stamina for this and is due to fly out tommorrow, should yourself or Abbott interviene and approach Peter Spencer with a resolution , TAKE THE STEP MR JOYCE , a very good mans life is on the line along with this nation.
regards linda macri wa
# Paul
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:21 AM

As an Aussie abroad, I woke up to Senator Joyce's view on climate
being aired on BBC radio to the British public. Blimey, how
embarrassing. At least give a credible scientific argument for your stance.
Better still, join the other 192 countries in the world that accept the reality -which it is.
# Paul
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:24 AM
Rebecca Monroe:

Re: David Bellamy's views, you are clutching at straws.

Credible = independent, peer reviewed, internationally accepted
science.

All else is nonsense.
# Paul
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:33 AM
Brian Smith & co:

Please sit down with say, the CSIRO and UN reports on climate
change and list precisely their inaccuracies. Go on, try it. You flat earther
folk have read and listened to nothing but newspapers and right wing quacks. Also, stop making up 'science' as you go along.
Do you also say to your doctor, 'I reject your diagnosis and I challenge your credibility'?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:05 AM
You are not an alien fella. You are an Athenian. And in Canberra that makes you seem like you are from another star system, so irrational they have become. This also puts you out of step on both sides of the street with our appalling economics fraternity as well. I'm not knocking Laurie as a journalist. But everything he thinks he knows about financial sophistication is totally wrong. Thats the part of the article you didn't quote above. One doesn't want to put words in Lauries mouth. But the implications of everything he said are just silly. And its not like its his fault alone. He's faithfully representing bipartisan positions of the economics graduate dummies that Australia seems to produce at an alarming rate.

Supposing I was to say that we had to turn this debt accumulation around and reindustrialise. Dummies on the left and faux-right with PHD's in economics would bring on the sneering. But they will not stick around to be scrutinised on these matters. Most Australian economists are appallingly ignorant of what is supposed to be their subject.
# Denise
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:27 AM
Well, as far as I can see there are two huge mistakes in Tony Abbott's Cabinet.

Joe Hockey and Ian MacFarlane.

If ever there was a person to keep an eye on it's Joe Hockey - Mr. "I don't know".

If Barnaby and Tony don't want leaks in the Coalition Ship, keep a keen eye on Joe. Ian MacFarlane, well we all know he is enamoured with Ms. Wong and Mr. Rudd. The way MacFarlane fell about, eager to please his domineering Boss Turnbull, was nothing short of disgusting and his adoring smiles at Ms. Wong were at times, sickening.

Apart from that, it's onward and upward for the Coalition and Barnaby, don't change your ways. Stay as you are - you are loved and admired by the people out here because we crave a genuine (not phony show pony, centre stage craving loonie) Aussie who is fair dinkum and has the gumption to say so!

You've won me back and I can't wait for the next Election to roll around.
# James Adamson
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:47 AM
Climategate: with business interests like these are we really sure Dr Rajendra Pachauri is fit to head the IPCC?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/
# James Adamson
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:49 AM
Global weather dataset being systematically corrupted


For the past six days, several climate scientists have discovered an alarming trend: clear evidence of alteration of historical data at weather stations around the world, in order to support the contention of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

READ MORE HERE:-

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-weather-dataset-being-systematically-corrupted
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:53 AM
Yes I wonder what IanMcFarlane is doing there as well..
Is he as smitten by Ms Wong as he seems to be,?
Joe Hockey stands for nothing !

Barnaby, you are the only voice of common sense in politics right now.
Common sense isnt common around Canberra ,unfortunately-
Please keep on telling it like it is, perhaps the cold reality of the situation
will dawn on a few people eventually.

# Pat Shooth
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:54 AM
I think that that traitor Malcom TURNCOAT ought to be expelled from the Liberal Party.
He will attempt to undermine it in the background.
He can never ever be trusted to represent the Australian people again.
He should joing his beloved Labor party!
# scio
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:18 PM
Did you read Bolts bogus story "Which Warming is this Gauge Really Measuring" - sloppy research at best , a pathetic sleazy lie at worst

It got regurgitated in the Telegraph as an even bigger lie : "US weather station data has been skewed upwards by badly placed monitoring stations (in the middle os asphalt carparks...) (Telegraph , Thursday Dec 10)

The tabloid journalists are too damn lazy to check any of the drivel they write
# Pat Shooth
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:26 PM
Not reason, but faith

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_reason_but_faith/desc/
# Pat Shooth
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:26 PM
Not reason, but faith

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_reason_but_faith/desc/
# Ann Hardgraves
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:27 PM
Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures
Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperatures change
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/
# Ann Hardgraves
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:29 PM
Burma and Bangladesh are the two countries most vulnerable to climate change, according to a report on ABC news this morning.

The report was published on the side-lines of the Copenhagen meeting – and presumably the meeting will push for those countries and their ilk to be given big cash handouts to help combat climate change.

Left-wing organisations like Friends of the Earth are already pushing for poor and “vulnerable” nations to be given huge handouts.

http://www.foe.org.au/climate-justice/issues/climate-justice-and-climate-negotiations

One of the major problems with this approach is that nations like Australia – read taxpayers – would be handing over billions of dollars to the most corrupt regimes in the world.

Bangladesh ranks 139 out of 180 nations and Burma 178 out of 180 on an international corruption index.

So we are expected to hand over our billions to corrupt dictators and despots, with little likelihood the money will ever be properly accounted for.

What a rort.
# Ann Hardgraves
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:32 PM
Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared

Read this article!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1234515/Copenhagen-climate-change-summit-The-world-COOLING-warming-says-scientist-Peter-Taylor---prepared.html
# Ronnel Huisman
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:33 PM
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

This is a very informative article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Cheers
# Phillip Brown
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:37 PM
AP Global Warming Fauxtography?

Looks like the warminists have been caught out again.
This time they’ve been doctoring photos to make a fairly inoccuous B/W photo of a smokestack look like it is spewing toxic pollution into the air. The doctored photo is then used in promo material and news sites as though it is a genuine shot.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/09/ap-global-warming-fauxtography/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BigGovernment+Big+Government
# Phillip Brown
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:42 PM
Climategate: ordering a better scare for Australia


CSIRO alarmist Barrie Pittock tells off Climategate scientist Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia for not presenting material that’s scary enough for green groups:
"I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices in a way that can be interpreted as saying that “even a greenie group like WWF” thinks large areas of the world will have negligible climate change. But that is where your 95% confidence limit leads.
Sorry to be critical, but better now than later!…
Dr A. Barrie Pittock
Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact Group
CSIRO Atmospheric Research"
Hulme agrees to help, up to a point, to hide some doubts:
"My reason for introducing the idea of only showing changes in T and P that *exceed* some level of ‘natural’ variability was a pedagogic one, rather than a formal statistical one (I concede that using ‘95% confidence’ terminology in the WWF leaflet is misleading and will drop this). And the pedagogic role of this type of visual display is to bring home to people that (some, much or all of) GCM simulated changes in mean seasonal precip. for some regions do *not* amount to anything very large in relation to what may happen in the future to precip. anyway…
The point behind all this is to emphasise that precip. changes are less well-defined than temp. changes *and* that we should be thinking of adaptation to *present* levels of precip. variability, rather than getting hung up on the problems of predicting future precip. levels. This pedagogic thinking is hard to communicate in a short WWF brochure.
Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only ‘where they are large relative to natural variability’, and to reduce my threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario).
But I do not intend to abandon the concept. I think it important - even for Greenie groups - to present sober assessments of magnitudes of change. Thus making it clear that future changes in T are better defined that future changes in P, and also to point out that future emissions (and therefore climate change) may be as low as the B1 scenario (is B1 climate change negligible? I almost think so), whilst also being possibly as high as A2 is I think very important.
The alternative is to think that such a more subtle presentation is too sophisticated for WWF. But I think (hope) not.
Thanks again Barrie for forcing me to think through this again."
Pittock then explains why he’s so keen to “improve” this material - and also illustrates just how close green groups are to the CSIRO (whose climate change risk expert Penny Whetton is married to a Greens politician):
"I should perhaps explain my delicate position in all this. As a retired CSIRO person I have somewhat more independence than before, and perhaps a reduced sense of vested interest in CSIRO, but I am still closely in touch and supportive of what CAR is doing. Also, I have a son who is now a leading staff member of WWF in Australia and who is naturally well informed on climate change issues. Moreover, Michael Rae, who is their local climate change staffer, is a member of the CSIRO sector advisory committee (along with some industry people as well) and well known to me. So I anticipated questions from WWF Australia, and from the media later when the scenarios are released..."
Hulme then alerts another colleague to this exchange, under an interesting header, as an example of the massaging of their message to fit an audience:
"From: Mike Hulme
To: Jennifer F Crossley
Subject: Re: masking of WWF maps
... it illustrates nicely the nuances of presenting climate scenarios in different Fora"
Word sure had got around the green traps about how helpful the University of East Anglia was prepared to be to green campaigners. Here is an email from green entrepreneur Adam Markham to Hulme, asking for “beefed up” scares and directing him to Pittock’s more alarming scenarios, as and example of what WWF likes:
"From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.sheard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press). One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is: “The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam"
(Thanks to reader Peter.)
UPDATE
Reader Grant:
"There is an explosive admission in this exchange that needs to be drawn out and it is to do with the following comment:
Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only ‘where they are large relative to natural variability’, and to reduce my threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario
In statistics this is important because any 1st year undergrad is told that the scientific approach for testing for significance is a 2-sigma test; ie the 95% confidence interval. Results that are significant at no more than 1-sigma significant are as good as meaningless in the sense that they are no different to sheer randomness and would be laughed all the way out of a 1st year course on stats."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php
# Richard Fortesque
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:57 PM
Confused? You might BE a psychologist

Some scientists just keep looking in the wrong places for answers. Here’s Stephan Lewandonsky, professorial fellow of psychology, in The Age trying to answer the most important question in modern science and economics. He refers to ClimateGate and asks if the stunning accusations of serious misconduct are true? Watch the flat out assertion backed by a non-sequiteur:
They are not. Even if we presume that the stolen material is authentic, the notion that climate data is being nefariously withheld is fantastical.
This does not even make sense within the confines of it’s punctuation. Is there a new Natural Law of Thermodynamics that says it’s impossible to withhold data? The data is gone, even Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit admits he has withheld it and won’t ever provide it:
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
We know the emails are real. Phil Jones has said as much. He admits he has withheld data for years, and that he’ll delete it as well if he has too. So it’s not “fantastical” to think that data is being withheld, it’s documented.
Then Lewandonsky claims the “data is freely available”. But that’s not true either according to Phil Jones himself who told Roger Pielke Jnr the original global records were gone:
“Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
Then Lewandonsky disagrees with himself: “Unfortunately, a small subset of the data is forcibly withheld by governments.” So the data is all available, (except for what isn’t).
I’m only 133 words into his piece, and already I’m losing count of the illogical errors, baseless statements and tautological impossibilities.
The mark of a white-wash, is that it doesn’t use direct quotes (they’re too damning). In an 800 word piece Lewandonsky uses only 4 words from the entire 1000 plus emails. Has he even read the emails he defends?
…what about the infamous use of a “trick” to “hide a decline” in the data? What about the pernicious “fudge factor” in the programming code? Surely those are the smoking guns that close the case against the scientists?
Wait for the reasoning:
No. If scientists fabricated their data, why is the Arctic melting…
We see another flat out assertion, followed by a logical error instead of evidence. Now there’s a new ethical index for scientists called “the Artic Melt”… obviously if the Arctic is melting, then scientists won’t be fabricating their data. Of course.
If there was recently record sea ice in Antarctica, that apparently, has no effect. Who’d have known?
It’s unsettling, to say the least, that someone with a science degree doesn’t understand cause and effect, but this man is a professorial fellow. He gives us a whole litany of the effects of warming, and not only pretends that that is evidence that carbon caused the warming, but that it somehow proves that climate scientists are honest as well.
Glaciers, windspeeds, sea-levels, and death tolls in Darfur are now lie-detectors for scientists. The nonsense and factual errors pile up:
“No, the climate scientists did nothing wrong. They just produced amazingly good science on a shoestring budget for the betterment of humanity”
A shoe-string budget eh? You mean like the $32 billion in funding for climate science shoe strings from the US government over the last 20 years? And it was all for the “betterment of humanity” according to Archbishop Lewandonsky. (How would he know?)
The ClimateGate emails are The Great Scandal of the modern scientific era. Possibly the only thing more shameful than the climate scientists who hide and delete data in order to deceive the world, are the way so many so-called scientists rush to defend the fraud.
Does Lewandonsky really think it’s OK to lose the entire raw data set for global temperatures and try to deliberately delete any other records you might not have “lost”.
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. “ Phil Jones
If The Age were serious about getting the right information for their readers, they would interview the scientists at the centre of the scandal, like Jones, Mann, Briffa, and Trenberth. They would also interview the scientists who’ve been seeking the data, like Steven McIntryre, Warwick Hughes, Pat Michaels or Fred Singer. But what does The Age do? It asks a expert in short term memory to tell us what the emails mean. I wouldn’t mind if Lewandowsky was a bob-cat operator*, but if he’s writing an opinion in The Age, you would think he knew something about what he was talking about.
# Richard Fortesque
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:16 PM
Demeaning the office of Prime Minister

When challenged on their faith in anthropogenic global warming, and their belief in their solution, Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and their spin doctors fall back on “the” science.

Well, “the” science used to say that stress - or spicy food - caused stomach ulcers. To use the language of the spin doctors, there used to be a “consensus” that bacteria were just not involved. They would say today that it was not just 90%, it was like a Soviet election or a 2020 Summit vote, close to 100%.

So when two Australian scientists, Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall, had the temerity to challenge this in 1982, they were derided. Their groundbreaking conclusion was that rather than stress or spicy food, most stomach ulcers and gastritis were caused by a bacterium, one helicobacter pylori.

Against the disdain of their peers, they persevered. When other scientists undertook further research and investigation, they too concluded that this bacterium could cause ulcers. In 2005 they were awarded the Nobel Prize.

So much for the spin doctor terminology: “the” science, a “consensus” or “90% probability”.

This column has warned that whenever you read or hear the term “the science”, know that this is a spin doctor designed device to try to tell you there is no other view among reputable scientists. Equally be wary of the slippery insertion of “climate change” where we once saw "global warming".

This spin doctoring is inconsistent with what true science is and must always be, a disinterested search for the facts, the truth. (As indeed what ethical journalism is, and must always be.) Just as a reminder of how far we could fall, remember that when Soviet scientists challenged the prevailing Stalin supported biological theory, Lysenkoism, they were dismissed, arrested and even executed. Today no one seriously espouses Lysenko’s beliefs.

It was encouraging then to see that the editor of The Australian (12-13/12) is also concerned by the way politicians are misrepresenting science to support their political programmes. As the editor said “Prefacing science with the definite article is a new and unwelcome development that bestows an unwarranted degree of certainty on a discipline that should, by its nature, be contestable.”

After all there is a parallel conference at Copenhagen where other reputable scientists are challenging the theory of anthropogenic global warming - at least to the extent that it claims carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are a significant cause of global warming.

Joanne Nova is an Australian scientist who wrote The Skeptics Handbook, 160,000 copies of which have been distributed in four nations and translated by volunteers into six languages. Her new blog has reached 140,000 people this year with over 400,000 page views.

She warns that the new cap and trade financial market will be larger than any commodity market. It is claimed to be “based on science”, but she says, if you ask for scientific evidence, “you’re called names … by our Prime Minister, no less.”

And not only does the Prime Minister call those who question the theory names, he smeared all of them: “And invariably they are driven by vested interests”.

He of course presented no evidence of this outrageous libel of university professors of science, Nobel Prize winners, and unfunded retired scientists.

And in any event, as Joann Nova says, “the money is wildly stacked in favour of scientists who believe the theory, rather than sceptical scientists who don’t. The ratio is more than 3000 to 1.”

She produced a paper, "The Climate Money", for the Science and Public Policy Institute which shows that while Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics (from 1998-2009), the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry (from 1989-2009).

And carbon trading just last year was a $126 billion market, attracting those same names we last heard of during the Global Financial Crisis.

Joanne Nova declares that a strong leader welcomes his critics. Instead, Kevin Rudd pours contempt on them, smearing them.

This is unworthy of an Australian Prime Minister.
# Campbell Swift
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:22 PM
Do we have it correctly reported that in view of your new portfolio, you will not be commenting on Climate Change? Correct or not, Climate Change seems very relevant to Finance. Now we hear (here in NSW) that electricity charges will increase around $900 per annum per family, partly because of State Government muck ups but also VERY largely due to the proposed ETS:
That's about finance! And what about all the expense for Rudd, Wong and their huge crew going to and having extravaganza at, Copenhagen: That's about finance too! Third point is that the whole show at Copenhagen, but specifically including Rudd/Wong, has swept "The Science" under the rug, without any admission that something may well be amiss as apparently exposed by the Hadley disclosures. IF it were shown that "The Science" is in fact as deficient as it could prove to be, then what is the whole thing about, at vast expense. That's finance too! Furthermore IF it WERE shown, then there would be profound effect upoin the fortunes (or the lack of them) of millions of people around the World.
I feel bound to comment that by ignoring the warning signals about "The Science" and not allowing any debate on this particular matter, Messrs Rudd and Wong are to my mind, violating the rights of the Australian public, to be properly represented and informed.

Please consider!
# Campbell Swift
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:32 PM
A further thought is the Steve Fielding may have a very real cause in asking for a Royal Commission into "The Science" isssue. If for practical reasons his proposal cannot be satisfied, then there should at least be an enquiry with some specific proviso that Truth be told. Probably hard to explain to Mister Rudd, the meaning of Truth, buit worth a try.
# Campbell Swift
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:32 PM
A further thought is the Steve Fielding may have a very real cause in asking for a Royal Commission into "The Science" isssue. If for practical reasons his proposal cannot be satisfied, then there should at least be an enquiry with some specific proviso that Truth be told. Probably hard to explain to Mister Rudd, the meaning of Truth, buit worth a try.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:06 PM


I just saw on the net that Rudd is continuing with his campaign to put filters on the Internet to" block child pornography"

I doubt this control freak of a PM will stop at porn, something tells me.


minutes ago

SYDNEY — Australia said Tuesday it would push ahead with a mandatory China-style plan to filter the Internet, despite widespread criticism that it will strangle free speech and is doomed to fail.

starting November, according to the news I saw.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:54 PM

Richard Fortesque:

Say what you like, but none of your views will be found in
peer reviewed scientific journals. I repeat,
peer reviewed scientific journals. It is what modern, technological
society is built upon.

Plimer, Lumbsberg, Spencer, et al - none of their views are supported
in peer reviewed scientific journals.

There is credible science, and there is conspiracy theory nonsense.
# scio
Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:51 PM
It was sad to see Ian Plimer so badly demolished on Lateline - it seems he is not very familiar with his own book.

Plimer used to be very good - his previous book "Telling Lies for God" humiliated the dishonest Christians in Australia and their ridiculous lies about Noahs Ark and similar idiocy.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:23 AM

Campbell Smith:
You say: Rudd is guilty of " violating the rights of the Australian public, to be properly represented and informed".

Honestly. There are tens of thousands of excellent, highly qualified, respected scientists out there whose peer reviewed findings are freely available. READ some of the findings. Read the CSIRO on climate change. or the UN, or UK Government reports. Use your web access to read some quality science, not as a modern version of leaning over the neighbours' fence and trading old wives' tales.
# Richard Fortesque
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:45 AM
THIS WHOLE ETS(Extra Tax System/Employment Termination Scheme)/CPRS(Create Poverty Ruthlessly Scheme)/TREASONOUS COPENHAGEN TREATY DEBACLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SO CALLED MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!

THE EARTH'S CLIMATE IS SIMPLY BEING USED AS A FACILITATOR TO ACHIEVE THE REAL AGENDA.

THAT AGENDA IS THE DOMINATION, CONTROL AND ENSLAVEMENT OF THE POPULATION!

WAKE UP, GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDES AUSTRALIANS, OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!
# Ian Smith
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:45 AM
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.
50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.
60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
# Annie Jones
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:58 AM
Gore’s deceits catch up with him.

The old fraud(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html) gets caught out again spinning whoppers(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record) and misrepresenting the science(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_al_gored):
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece)
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
This, by the way, is the third different date Gore has given for an ice-free Arctic as the ice stubbornly refuses to melt. His previous guesses were 2013 and 2014.(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/arctic_refuses_to_behave_predictions_adjusted/)
Why does anyone still believe a word this carpetbagger(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hand_it_to_hustling_gore/) says?
# Roy Mayweather
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:59 AM
Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye(http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html) and dismissed them as mere piffle(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant-tell-time-thinks-most-recent-climategate-email-is-more-than-10-years-old/):
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, 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.
And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail 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 is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
In fact, thrice denied:
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
In fact, as Watts Up With That(http://wattsupwiththat.com/) shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago(http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming3/ClimateGate2.html). The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_which_one_blew_the_whistle/). Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails(http://co2realist.com/2009/11/28/phil-jones-emails-taken-out-of-context/) is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

Could those carefully vetted journalists who are allowed an audience with the Great Green Guru please - for once - confront him with his exaggerations, distortions, fake evidence and absurd predictions? I’ve done this myself over this issue, and can guarantee you will get a far funnier and more interesting reaction than another of his sermons. You may also get something rather closer to the truth.
# Jo Bjerk
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:04 AM
Why not just paste in the link.

Monbiot scored a knockout against Plimer, according to the media
# scio
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:45 AM
It was sad to see Ian Plimer so badly demolished on Lateline - it seems he is not very familiar with his own book.

Plimer used to be very good - his previous book "Telling Lies for God" humiliated the dishonest Christians in Australia and their ridiculous lies about Noahs Ark and similar idiocy.
# Dimwitted mother of five
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:18 AM
I think Juliette (December 16, 2009 4:51 AM) is right - anyone who believes in climate change is a damn traitor & communist - they should be kicked out of Australia.

Lets start with just two commies who believe in climate change , support an ETS & want us all to make sacrifices : John Howard and The Queen. Banish them from Australia - REPUBLIC NOW
# James May
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Cutting wealth, not emissions
Other than this, and the higher prices(http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/storytemplate/nsw-power-bills-to-rise-up-to-62-due-to-network-fixes-and-ets/story-e6frezc0-1225810517218) and power blackouts(http://www.nationals.org.au/News/LatestNews/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4498/Warnings-of-blackouts-and-power-shortages-under-ETS.aspx), it won’t hurt a bit, honest:
THE amended emissions trading scheme put forward by the Government threatens to wipe off about 3 per cent of the value of Australia’s top 200 companies(http://www.theage.com.au/business/company-values-may-be-burnt-by-an-ets-20091215-kulg.html), according to research to be released today…
An analysis of the revised plan by carbon risk firm RepuTex and Arbor Partners, consultants to institutional investors, shows that indirect factors such as electricity and supply chain costs, will make up 60 per cent of the total carbon liability of S&P/ASX 200 companies.
That would add $3.1 billion to the $2.1 billion in direct costs companies face through trading permits.
And then there are the fines the United Nations will impose on us - fines some countries already face under the Kyoto Protocol:
Because of breaches of its emissions target under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada owes about $1 billion...(http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/walkout-triggers-copenhagen-breakdown-20091214-kses.html)
# Wendy
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:02 AM
I dont care if 100 scientists agree, all I want is one fact! (Albert Einstein)
The debate is not over!
# scio
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:13 AM
Did you read Bolts bogus story "Which Warming is this Gauge Really Measuring" - sloppy research at best , a pathetic sleazy lie at worst

It got regurgitated in the Telegraph as an even bigger lie : "US weather station data has been skewed upwards by badly placed monitoring stations (in the middle of asphalt carparks...) (Telegraph , Thursday Dec 10)

The tabloid journalists are too damn lazy to check any of the drivel they write
# Jamie
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:13 AM
KRudd is doing more to destroy this Country than all his predecessors combined.
1/ ETS
2/ Post GFC Debit
3/ Fuel Watch = Multi million dollar failure
4/ Grocery Watch = Multi million dollar failure
5/ Boat People/ asylum explosion
6/ Lets not forget the million dollar failure of the "Ideas Summit" Anyone know of one idea raised that has been implemented?
7/ Now Internet Censorship.

Welcome Comrades to the new Australia. Abbott just needs to high lite the waste of Keven 747 plus the cost implications (tax) of the ETS and he will be a shoe in. Lets not forget Comrade Gillard refusing to attend the remembrance ceremony, how un-Australian was that?

But will Abbott be able to get his argument across? any criticism made will be blocked by the internet censors as it will be against the Nations Interest LOL.
# ChrisB
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:22 AM
Among the news flashes, of course, are the ones that record that you were named after a comic strip named "Barnaby the mathematical genius." If you want to give your blog followers a great big Xmas present, could you find a copy of the strip to put up? Google is otherwise silent on the point.
# Brendon Taylor
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:06 PM
“Kevin Rudd says that average Australians families must accept a much lower standard of living, so that India, China & the Third World can raise their standard of living”
# Daniel Fierro
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:14 PM
Why is Barnaby or Abbott not going to Hoaxenhagen??

Please everyone send your support today and tomorrow to Steve Fielding, as he is the only sane Aussie Policitician attending COP15. I think Barnaby and Abbott should send him some private words of support, as he is fighting the good fight.

Did you know ... Steve Fiedling who has been at COP15 for 3days was banned from attending on the 4th, as Rudd does not want the world to know that there are opposing views to Global Warming in Australia, echoed by Australian people and Australian Politicians.

This is why it is critical for Barnaby or at least Abbott to contact Fielding if they are not attending. They must let the worlds media know the truth!
# Daniel Fierro
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:16 PM
Aussie Politician Calls for Investigation into IPCC climate science - Climategate

USA SENATORS ECHO FIELDING'S CALL FOR CLIMATE SCIENCE INVESTIGATION

Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding says 27 US Senators have also called for an independent investigation into IPCC climate science.

Senator Fielding has gained a copy of the US senators letter to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, calling for an investigation similar to the 2004 independent inquiry into the UN's Oil for Food Program.

"The US Senators letter raises huge concerns about wether the IPCC's top scientists have engaged in efforts to manipulate data, defame scientists with opposing viewpoints and evade transparency," Senator Fielding said.

"The recent announcement by the IPCC to investigate the leaked emails is all very well and good, but how that investigation will be structured and implemented remains an open question.

“This isn't just one or two emails - we're talking about claims that several of the UN's top scientists apparently are evading laws requiring transparency."

Senator Fielding says we need to get to the bottom of these serious claims and the call by 27 US Senators vindicates his call for a Royal Commission.

"Given now the huge concerns surrounding the science, the Copenhagen conference could be a complete waste of time if the leaked emails are proven to be genuine as they bring into question the validity of arguments put out by the Rudd Government," Senator Fielding said.

"We owe it to the people who we represent to do everything possible to get to the bottom of these serious claims and that includes looking at the science.

"The last thing the Australian public wants to see is our Prime Minister whacking hard working Australians with a massive new tax when there are huge questions about the science." Senator Fielding said.
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17301:investigation-into-ipcc-climate-science-&catid=116:breaking-news&Itemid=298

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can’t sign Australia up to any climate change deal brokered in Copenhagen, Family First senator Steve Fielding says.

Senator Fielding is already in Copenhagen to spruik his views that humans may not be affecting the climate.

He said Mr Rudd was attending the United Nations talks with a “bunch of empty promises” on cutting carbon emissions that he can’t fulfil.

“I don’t know how the prime minister thinks he can sign Australia up to any agreement when his own climate change policy has been rejected twice,” Senator Fielding said in a statement on Tuesday.

The federal government’s emissions trading scheme was earlier this month rejected by the Senate for a second time, when the coalition and crossbench senators voted against it.

Senator Fielding said Mr Rudd must wait until parliament approves his climate change legislation before committing to any carbon emissions reduction targets agreed upon at Copenhagen.
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/rudd_cant_do_a_deal_at_copenhagen_-_fielding/

CLIMATE TALKS SHOULD BE SUSPENDED: FIELDING
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17243:climate-talks-should-be-suspended-fielding&catid=116:breaking-news&Itemid=298
# Daniel Fierro
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:17 PM
TRUE .. as Michael says above ..

What RUDD does not want you to know ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv9t2Jrvne4
# Brian Davis
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:26 PM
CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE NOT ‘SETTLED’: SCIENTISTS PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator
Monday, 07 December 2009 10:28
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/ or contact:
# Antonia
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:27 PM
The problem with peer review and the IPCC

Dr Philip Lloyd, a co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC has called for the IPCC to be consigned to the scrapheap without delay. He said the time for pontification is over and that the climate change critics must be answered. He also said that scientific papers should be "scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor. However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

"The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific." Got it, Richard?

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

So all you climate alarmists, Barnaby is right and you have been well and truly led by the nose in trusting the IPCC let alone that ignoramus, Al Gore, who thinks the temperature of the earth's mantle is "several million degrees" at "about two kilometers down". What a dope.

Let a real debate begin. Let ALL the scientists have access to the data and the computer codes. Let all the weather stations' records be checked. This is all the sceptics want: proper science, not politicised science. What are you afraid of?



# Monckton Rocks
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:31 PM
Please sit back and get ready for a few laughs ..

What would a Greenpeace supporter know?

Christopher Monckton holds a Socratic dialogue on climate data with a Greenpeace supporter. It’s the wanting to believe that is the key in this debate, and also the reason why facts barely count. The disgraceful role of the media in creating this scare is very clear:
This line from the Greenpeace fan, in dismssing Monckton’s data on a lack of recent warming, is a classic:
Lady- 'we're talking about two different planets'!
Monckton- 'I’m talking about a planet where it does happen'
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

There was more than 1 sheep in that paddock that day
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIjygRPpmk
# Sad Reality
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:31 PM
"Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists"
~~Michael Crichton
# Daniel Fierro
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:42 PM
Barnaby and Abbott have to deliver a written message to Mr Rudd, and put on notice the COP15 Management Board, that if Mr Rudd attempts to sign on behalf of Australia and its Citizens, to any binding treaty at Copenhagen, Mr Rudd will have been acting Ultra Vires (beyond his legal capacity) and the Liberal Party will, immediately they are elected to power in the coming March Double Dissolution, or other, officially, on behalf of the citizens, restore the Australian People’s Sovereign will, so ignored and remove Australia and its citizens from such illegal International treaty binding.
# jimmy g
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:17 PM
WOW - this message is appearing on many sites on the internet - Tony Abbott , News Ltd blogs etc :


"Everyone should visit the blog of Barnaby Joyce - most amazing posts - extreme profanities, death threats , accusations of being a traitor & communist to anyone making any comment in favour of the science of climate change............Malcolm Turnbull is the subject of the most outrageous (& moronic ) claims

And of course, regurgitation of the drivel Andrew Bolt posts


It reflects badly on the rent-a-crowd who support Dads Army"

# jimmy g
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:19 PM
Sad Reality Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:31 PM
"Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists"
~~Michael Crichton


You mean Michael Crichton , the author of dumbed down fiction?
I guess he must mean Ian Plimer - one of Australia's most militant atheists
# Mitchell
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:39 PM
I don't care if 100 scientists agree, all I want is one fact! (Albert Einstein)
The debate is not over!
# Mitchell
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:42 PM
Al Gore, THE SOON TO BE BILLIONAIRE, THANKS TO THE SHEEPLE OF THE WORLD, IS ANOTHER GREAT FICTIONAL STORY TELLER.

LOOK AT THAT SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE HE PRODUCED "A CONVENIENT LIE"!
# Mitchell
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:48 PM
New Scientist becomes Non Scientist

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.
In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…
The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility they might have had.
I’ve added my own helpful notes into the New Scientist article, just so you get the full picture.
NS (New Scientist): “Climategate” has put scientists on trial in the court of public opinion.
JN (Joanne Nova): Since there’s evidence of falsification, hiding data, artificially altering results, and deleting records, a trial sounds entirely appropriate. How about the Supreme Court kind?
NS: If you believe climate skeptics, a huge body of evidence* involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century…
JN: I’d hate to exaggerate, but the IPCC can only name 60 scientists who reviewed the evidence on causation in the Fourth Assessment Report, and most of them were either reviewing their own work, had a vested interest, or are caught up in the Climategate scandal …
NS: …should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions*.
JN: Nothing? So for New Scientist, it’s normal practice to refuse to provide data, refuse FOI’s, and then delete data? Maybe this is the normal practice for a religion, but it sure isn’t normal for science.
And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor; and that’s empirical, by observation — not by … simulation.
This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves they have become Non Scientist:
“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”
Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the blackhole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow their reasoning through the black hole and you don’t emerge on the other side.
Did you see the blackhole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?
Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”, it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted, whether the conclusions are robust. But since the data is g o n e , no one can verify anything. So in a way it does come down to “trust“; in the new quasi religious form of science you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?
Did they make the right “adjustments”? Who the heck knows?
So does New Scientist publish the most significant emails to let readers make up their own minds, or does it hide the damning lines, and feed in some old distractions they found in festering mess of bias called the New Scientist Archive? Choose B, go for an eighteen year old paper by people not mentioned in the hacked emails. Of course. Then have another go at a science documentary that didn’t mention the hacked emails, but got part of a graph wrong. (And don’t mention that Al Gore’s movie made nine significant errors as determined by a British Court.)
New Scientist is attacking the 31,000 volunteer scientists, while it defends the 60 corrupt paid ones.
Then, take another swipe at the unpaid scientists who arranged a petition which attracted thousands of signatures. New Scientist briefly note the latest version of this petition, but since they really can’t find any flaws with this new version which has an astounding 31,000 signatures on it, New Scientist spends several paragraphs on the earlier versions, which could have been done a bit better, but was obviously mainly right, as shown by the second round… Remember the petition was done by volunteers and done twice. It’s the largest grassroots movement of scientists on any topic anywhere in the world, and New Scientist is attacking the 31,000 volunteer scientists, while it defends the 60 corrupt paid ones.
It’s beyond silly. The mindless, irrelevant attacks go on. They attack Nigel Lawson for using a misleadingly short time (eight years) to argue that the world is not warming (which is exactly what the satellite data shows). Eight years is too short for New Scientist to announce a flat trend, but in every other article with a single flood, a single cyclone, or a single heat wave, one week is long enough for New Scientist to imply that global warming might be to blame. So a season of hurricanes is significant, but years of cooling is misleading. Righto. (And Amen).
They attack Christopher Moncktons paper, not because they can summarize why it was in error, but because another group disagree, and there are some technicalities of whether it jumped through the right hoops to be called “peer review.” Attack the man and not the message eh? New Scientist stands up for the bureaucratic details of “peer review” (only some peers count), but they won’t stand up for the independent scientists, the whistleblowers who want access to data, just to check those “peer reviewed papers” didn’t turn out to be baseless frauds like the Hockey Stick.
We subscribers buy New Scientist in the hope it will impartially give us both sides of the story, in a summary form which is accurate… and the subscribers are rebelling. The comments below the article are 90% skeptics, 2% believers, and the rest are presumably so angry theirs were deleted.
I think it might be time to form the New Scientist Action Group — the one where subscribers and former subscribers think of ways to rescue this once great magazine from itself.
# Ryan Maddison
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:52 PM
Is there any excuse? New Scientist tries them all.

* New Scientist claims nothing in the hacked emails (which might have been leaked) is of any concern and they link to this article(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true&print=true). Here they at least manage to stick to the topic of ClimateGate – but the reasoning amounts to saying that the scandal is OK for a litany of excuses that don’t add up:

1. “The world is warming”.(So because the world is warming due to some mix of causes, it’s alright if scientists fiddle the data on the exact temperature trend. What’s the difference: 0.1 degrees, 0.3 degrees? There are only trillions of dollars resting on it.)
2. “We know greenhouse gases are the main cause of warming”. (Yes, that’s according to a committee which includes the scientists implicated in the scandal. That sounds fine comrade…)
3. Scientists need to fix the data. (They do, but somehow the corrections are always towards the catastrophic model predictions. Strange how the radiosondes, satellites, ocean buoys and thermometers are all in a conspiracy to hide the warming… Who would have thought?)
4. Hiding declines is ok. (They don’t know why their favourite proxy doesn’t find warming after 1960, but they’ll hide that and use a thermometer reading, which is bound to be more accurate even though over half of them are now near hot airport tarmacs, and most of the rest have air conditioning outlets nearby(http://joannenova.com.au/2009/10/the-main-%e2%80%9ccause%e2%80%9d-of-global-warming-is-air-conditioners-p7/). The words “cherry picking” come to mind… why are tree rings good for 1000 years, then bad for 50, just at the time we have thermometers that have siting problems we can use instead. Coincidence?)
5. Avoiding Freedom of Information requests is ok too. (If you want to avoid legal requests for data that you should have provided freely anyway, you could: A/ Supply that information, or B/ Hide it and claim there were other legal reasons why you hid it, but the drawback is that then you face FOI’s for those legal agreements which you don’t have, or C/ hide everything so long that you get flooded with repeated FOI’s — then you can pretend that you were swamped and couldn’t meet them all.)

It’s too easy. If you are a pro-global warming scientist there is nothing you can do that is outside the bounds of normal science. New Scientist will defend you.
# Ann
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:23 PM
More sinister stories from the U.S. regarding population control by the eco nazi's:-


Obamacare (tm) that programme is run by the population control loonie called John Holdren, the Science Czar, he wrote an interesting article into his thesis on Population Control and reducing Carbon ‘pollution’ to ‘save the planet’.

Euthanasia,Abortions and Birth Permits are his closet policies for Obamacare’s rationing of health services.
Obamacare called ‘euthanasia bill’
Critic: ‘Reflects regime worse than China’s one-child policy’

Also involved is the shady Population Control Agenda is Paul Erhlich and the Population Council.
# Mrs.D.Wood
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:37 PM
Thank you Barnaby Joyce, for making a stand for Australia.
We watch you on the ABC Lateline, and we are pleased
with how you handle Tony Jones and Leigh Sales.
Our Family are always making complaints about that
programme, as they like to discriminate against Aussies who
are on the Right of politics. Jones and Sales come across as
very unfair, and that is not how a robust democracy should
work. We should be able to debate issues, instead of the Far
Lefties pushing their very own agenda in the media.
# Hanna M
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:47 PM
this is brilliant.. you coul not even script this it is so outrageous!

MONCKTON v GREENPEACE

MONCKTON 1 - GREENPEACE 0

Christopher Monckton holds a Socratic dialogue on climate data with a Greenpeace supporter. It’s the wanting to believe that is the key in this debate, and also the reason why facts barely count. The disgraceful role of the media in creating this scare is very clear:
This line from the Greenpeace fan, in dismssing Monckton’s data on a lack of recent warming, is a classic:
Lady- 'we're talking about two different planets'!
Monckton- 'I’m talking about a planet where it does happen'
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

There was more than 1 sheep in that paddock that day
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIjygRPpmk
# George Wallace
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:06 PM
The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/
# George Wallace
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:28 PM
The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/
# George Wallace
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:36 PM
The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/
# jennifer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 6:52 PM


I came across this page of articles about Al Gore,

I could not believe he has such form.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html

plenty of material here! A frightening man,
# Hanna M
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:18 PM
@George (above)

I have been watching Senator Inhofe and his role in this to expose the truth and push the US govt and the EPA (to no avail) last week.
SEE him in action; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu6gbze5kBI

Inhofe is a hero, this is what Barnaby and Abbott need to do to take it to the next level.

He is the man of action against tyranny and fraud, remember when he stood up an debunked Al Gores 'Incon Lies'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VgdYJWdhRw

And this is Inhofe's brilliant speech/presentation in congress in March on Cap'n'Trade (ETS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3fKXhBolA

Also keep updated via his own Youtube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/JimInhofePressOffice

Barnaby should contact this guy.......swap notes!
# Hanna M
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:27 PM
@George (above)

I have been watching Senator Inhofe and his role in this to expose the truth and push the US govt and the EPA (to no avail) last week.
SEE him in action; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu6gbze5kBI

Inhofe is a hero, this is what Barnaby and Abbott need to do to take it to the next level.

He is the man of action against tyranny and fraud, remember when he stood up an debunked Al Gores 'Incon Lies'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VgdYJWdhRw

And this is Inhofe's brilliant speech/presentation in congress in March on Cap'n'Trade (ETS)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3fKXhBolA

Also keep updated via his own Youtube page
http://www.youtube.com/user/JimInhofePressOffice

Barnaby should contact this guy.......swap notes!
# Daniel Fierro
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:28 PM
Barnaby and Abbott have to deliver a written message to Mr Rudd, and put on notice the COP15 Management Board, that if Mr Rudd attempts to sign on behalf of Australia and its Citizens, to any binding treaty at Copenhagen, Mr Rudd will have been acting Ultra Vires (beyond his legal capacity) and the Liberal Party will, immediately they are elected to power in the coming March Double Dissolution, or other, officially, on behalf of the citizens, restore the Australian People’s Sovereign will, so ignored and remove Australia and its citizens from such illegal International treaty binding.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:51 PM

Only here would one be called a communist for suggestio you yokels
read some credible science.

Outside Australia, Plimer, Monkton etc have no credibility.
As usual, Oz is behind the game, and Qld ten years behind the rest of Oz.
# jennifer
Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:44 AM

A collection of articles about Al Gore- Warmist superstar..

http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html

enlightening,!



# fay of newcastle
Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:30 AM
Hi Barnaby, some thoughts from fellow bloggers:

I wonder if someone, somewhere is keeping a running total of the money that KRudd and gang are promising to all and sundry.

Australia, the Australian economy and Australians, and all our money, and future earnings are merely collateral damage for Rudd as he attempts to buy his Stairway to Heaven as PM of the World and head up the UN.
Rudd (and Swan) are pilfering this country in way not seen since Mugabe destroyed Rhodesia.
Meanwhile farmers battle drought, illegals invade with Rudd’s Navy help, cane toads get transported around the country, aboriginal tribes are fighting over who really owns the land, immigration numbers are exploding and there is no water and soon there will be no electricity
If Zimbabwe had continued on the economic path it was following when it was Rhodesia, it would be one of the countries being asked to pay.
The “less developed countries” are that way because of poor governance, not climate change or European colonialism.
Wouldn’t anything agreed to at nohopenchangin have to be ratified in the senate back home?
Or does King Kev have Australia’s cheque book at his disposal?
If you have nuclear weapons, a space program and the capacity to build advanced naval combat vessels can you really claim to be still developing or is it just a reflection of different spending priorities?
The under developed world has been locking up carbon in people big time. Will we be subsidising that as well? I do not recall having a say in China having over a billion people. Collectively they are 30% of the so called problem. The result of anything we pay for must be accurately measured and stopped if ineffectual. As a measure I suggest the number of hours for China to equal it. How about we call it the CMU that is China Makes it Useless.
World leaders have been emphatically hammered that they MUST go home with a deal. Kevin must be seen to be coming home victorious waving a piece of white paper in Tony Abbott’s face.
Same old same old, all the corrupt, mismanaged, tin pot African dictatorships crying out “give us a dollar”.
How are TPLD’s (tin pot little dictatorships) effected by Global warming anyway? Remind me someone.
Sure you can have a dollar, but we decide how you spend it, better still hand your governance back to us to make sure that it is well spent, since you guys have made a pigs breakfast of running your countries.
If Kev is such a great believer then maybe he can start by re-distribution of his own family wealth.
It’s a total crock!
If you were a true believer and, if you had this money to spend (which we don’t) then surely you would spend it on Australia, say something crazy like, say; convert all the coal fired power stations to LNG.
Oh, a little too pragmatic you say.
Oh Kev, you’re a real JERK

Cheers and congratulations, Fay Sharp
# Gary Duffy
Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:44 AM
On your comment where they said you were out of hnd with your comment that the US could go bankrupt... Well Obama has just told Americans The US could go broke and soon...

While being interviewed by ABC News Charles Gibson, President Obama warns, that if Congress doesn't pass health care reform legislation, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”
"If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you," Obama said. "If we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget."
And it is looking like it may not pass the health care bill.

So your comments were spot on.
Keep up the good fight.
and merry Xmas
# james
Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:07 PM
Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

Tony Abbott admitted on Lateline that although he quotes from Ian Plimers book Heaven & Earth, the Hadley Report, IPCC report etc , he has never actuaslly bothered to read any of them , preferring to just read whats in the press. Perhaps he will read this book?

(I am sure he didnt read Plimers previous book - Telling Lies for God : exposing the lies , fabrications & scandals of the fundamentalist religious right)


"Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry’s own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.
The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that — 20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the “White House effect” — a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just don’t know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they don’t know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.
Leveraging four years of original research conducted through Hoggan’s website, DeSmogBlog.com, Hoggan and Littlemore documented the participation of lapsed scientists and ExxonMobil-funded think tanks. Then they analyzed and explained how mainstream media stood by — or in some cases colluded — while deniers turned a clear issue of science (and an issue for public safety) into a partisan argument that no one could win.
This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up"
# Gordon Walker
Thursday, December 17, 2009 8:00 PM
Hilarious - and SO TRUE! I also enjoyed your comments on the ARTWORK that adorns our highest level public building, an abomination in itself. Keep up the pressure!
# Dan
Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:13 PM
Barnaby you are too far to the right letting comments like that idiot Gerry Mander remain on your blog.
# Daniel Fierro
Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:02 PM
Thank you Barnaby for going to see the Farmer Peter Spencer.
It is an outrage that this man is on Day 35 of his hunger strike and NOTHING has been reported in the Mainstream Media, and No news from Mr Kevin Dictator Rude.
Please talk this man down, otherwise Kevin Rude with have Blood on his hands.
# jennifer
Friday, December 18, 2009 7:59 AM
Barnaby enrages them again,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/barnaby-joyce-attacked-over-land-use-claim/story-e6frgczf-1225811553771

Trying to get compensation for farmers whose land has been taken for
carbon sinks.

Go Barnaby.
# jennifer
Friday, December 18, 2009 7:59 AM
Barnaby enrages them again,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/barnaby-joyce-attacked-over-land-use-claim/story-e6frgczf-1225811553771

Trying to get compensation for farmers whose land has been taken for
carbon sinks.

Go Barnaby.
# George Wallace
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:08 AM
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists
===============================================
manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
=============================

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Monday, February 22, 2010 9:11 PM
Good morning. The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Best term life insurance rates. I found only this - aig term life insurance. Term life insurance, of car alive banks are comparatively guaranteed on these look-alikes, but they are less than those delayed by drawn disadvantages. This other gender can invest a completely especially large company to be low and good and follow a mortgage term to need some such annuity of acquisition loss to invest against a bad question or insurance, term life insurance. Thank :o Theodora from Kenya.
# Bruce Erwin
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:52 PM
Barnaby, met you at the amalgamation of the LNP. Liked you immeadiately. I've been telling Andrew Laming what a great bloke you are ever since. Hopefully we'll meet again sometime soon. Keep up the fantastic work.

Home | Issues | Blog | Newsroom | Achievements | Policies | About Barnaby | Out and About | Links | Feedback
Accessibility | Privacy Policy & Disclaimer | Site by Datasearch | Login

© Senator Barnaby Joyce 2009 | Authorised by Barnaby Joyce - 90 The Terrace, St. George Qld 4487