Climate Research needs Re-direction
Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.
“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”
Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.
The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.
Read more, as well as:
- Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings
- Let’s Hear How They Will Do It
- The Overflow Column
- Obama Baloney
- US/China Climate Agreement triggers Global Cooling in US
- A Lone Australian Farmer Fights back against Kyoto Theft. He needs our help
- Another Climate Change Ransom from the IPCC
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/science-settled.pdf [PDF, 280KB]
Keywords: Climate research, climate models, oceans, volcanoes, ice ages, biofuels, IPCC, snow storms.
On 22 September, the winter maximum ice sheet extent across the Antarctic reached its greatest area since satellite measurement of the ice extent began in 1979 .
This is consistent with satellite lower tropospheric temperature data for the South Polar region at Dr Roy Spencer’s Web site  which reveals a slight but not statistically significant rate of cooling for the region for the 36 years of satellite measurement.
Coinciding with this, measurements of the atmospheric CO2 have been collected by NOAA at the South Pole and the data is available on the World Meteorological Organisation Web site . It shows that the CO2 concentration has increased by 17.7% in the same period.
Confirmation of this disparity is available on the WMO Web site where measurements by CSIRO are provided for the CO2 concentration at the Antarctic stations of Casey  and Mawson . Comparison of the CO2 concentration with the station’s average temperature data, available at the Bureau of Meteorology Web site , showed that both stations have experienced slight, -0.78 deg C per century at Casey and -1.43 deg C per century at Mawson, but not statistically significant cooling over the terms of the measurement. However the CO2 concentration has increased at Casey by 9% in 16.5 years and at Mawson 11.4% in 23 years.
These results are clear evidence that the IPCC proposition that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causes warming of the Earth’s surface is invalid. As the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has been much the same across the whole of the globe, the above puts paid to the CO2 – global warming fraud.
 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/?ref=ftr [Direct links: Casey; Mawson; use the “All years of data” link at the top right to download a ZIP file.]
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.
Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,
Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
By Richard Treadgold
Len Mills sends us a study of wind farms reported in the Daily Mail. It emerges that their real production history falls a long way short of the breathless claims some make for them.
I too wish to save the world, but not by using wind turbines, because they’ll ruin us first. They’re expensive, ugly, short-lived, noisy to the point of ill-health, ugly, kill bats and birds, they stop generating if there’s too little or too much wind, they demand lots of rare metals and they’re ugly.
Incidentally, if you actually want to contaminate a dependable schedule with a wind turbine’s unpredictable variability, a wind farm needs instant, reliable backup (meaning fossil-fuelled spinning reserve), meaning you greatly increase your establishment costs, about double your operating costs and your CO2 emissions are not reduced by a jot or tittle. I ought to mention they brutalise the landscape.
Speech to the Senate
Carbon Farming Initiative Bill
Parliament House, Canberra
31 October, 2014
Bob Day AO
Senator for South Australia
Thank you Mr President.
This year the world will enjoy its greatest grain crop on record. Let me say that again. This year the world will enjoy its greatest grain crop on record. After the world food security crisis of 2007 which saw civil unrest in some countries, it is fantastic to see that in just 7 years we are producing record amounts of food for a growing world population. The US Department of Agriculture recently raised global crop predictions for corn, soy and wheat. Yet the World Bank indicates that over the last 10 reporting years, the percentage of agricultural land worldwide has not changed.
So what is driving this world food production boom?
Mr President, plants are thriving on the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A recent study showed that climate modellers over-estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that would remain in the atmosphere. Lo and behold, they have now discovered that plants are soaking up the additional carbon dioxide and growing more vigorously. Plants and trees and crops will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than expected. It’s called the ‘carbon dioxide fertilisation effect’. This is not just a benefit to food crops- it is a boon to native vegetation, from the ancient forests to desert scrub that environmental activists have been trying to preserve for decades. Then there is the latest science on how the oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide with plankton growing faster than previously thought.
So why is this Government spending billions of dollars to reduce this airborne saviour of vegetation and food crops?
I am stunned by the number of politicians who are either ignorant or wilfully misleading the public on this topic. A whole political industry has developed around new arcane language to describe what we have known for centuries about producing food and improving our environment. A whole false economy has developed, fuelled by taxpayer funding through an Emissions Reduction Fund, An Emissions Trading Scheme, Renewable Energy Targets, The Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, Climate Change Departments and more. This Bill seeks to subsidise activities because they have so-called ‘co-benefits’ – well, if there are benefits in activities that also arguably help the environment, people should be doing them anyway without massive taxpayer subsidies – just as landfill operators have been doing – and I commend them for doing so over the years – in capturing gas emissions from landfills, until the rent seeking, carpet-bagging, bootlegging crony capitalists jumped on the climate change bandwagon to suck money from the taxpayer.
With the carbon tax, families felt and could clearly see for the first time the direct impact on their personal budgets from spending money to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This Emissions Reduction Fund is no different, but by sleight of hand people will be less able to see how their taxes will need to stay higher than they should be in order to pay for this scheme.
Taking money from low-income families and spending it on dodgy activities with a spurious scientific basis punishes the poor, rewards the rent-seekers and churns money in taxes, grants and rebates.
Mr President, Australia can not afford this Emissions Reduction Fund during what the Government has told us is a budget emergency.
While many families struggle with the cost of living, while mums and dads struggle to find jobs to make ends meet, the Government spends their money appeasing high-income elites enthralled by this latest cause and championed by celebrities, self-promoting ‘experts’ and certain elements of the media.
Rent-seekers like wind tower companies and solar panel manufacturers get paid handsomely and advocates in the climate change industry are living very nicely off the system flying around in private jets irrespective of whether these schemes improve the environment or human living conditions.
$2.5bn of taxpayers money spent on reducing carbon dioxide to stop so-called global warming while Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is growing. Growing, not shrinking. It’s bizarre!
I am dismayed that honest, intelligent people in this place can sit mute and watch this blatant trashing of both science and economics.
Mr President, I have a science background but any high school student can tell you that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. CO2 in the atmosphere is not pollution!
Now I know there are colleagues in this chamber who agree with me on all this but feel they must toe a party line but I for one am not so constrained and perhaps I speak for them also in saying that I will not sit mute and support this nonsense.
Minister Cormann told this place just two days ago, and I quote:
“Coal is good. Coal is good. It is at the heart of our economic prosperity here in Australia and around the world. It has helped lift living standards for people right across the world. It will continue to help lift living standards around the world.”
If that is so, if colleagues believe in all good conscience that this Bill is wrong, then I urge them to speak up – don’t be scientific girly men!
I oppose the Bill.
Short Biography – Dr. Patrick Moore
Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. The leader of many Greenpeace campaigns (e.g. “Save the Whales”, seal hunting), he was a member of the Rainbow Warrior crew when the anti-nuclear testing ship was bombed in Auckland Harbour. Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.
He left Greenpeace in 1986 because of his concern at the anti-science and extreme political policies it was adopting; nevertheless, he remains passionately concerned about the environment and describes himself as a “sensible environmentalist”. This, of course makes him a most controversial figure as the current Greenpeace policies are not aligned with his “sensible” view. He is visiting Australia to explain why his view of catastrophic global warming differs from that of the extreme green movement.
Patrick Moore’s Public Appearances in Australia
- 22 Oct. 5 for 5:30 Sydney RSL, L3 Function Room, 565 George St. a $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs.
- 23 Oct. 6:30 pm for 7pm The Mirrors Room, Club Five Dock, 66 Great North Road, Five Dock a $20 donation ($10 for students) is requested at the door to cover costs; rsvp: Jim Simpson – 0417 285 884 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- 24 Oct. 5 for 5:30pm CQ Functions, 113 Queen St, a $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs
- 27 Oct. 12 for 12:30 The Australian Club 110 William St 2-course lunch $110 p.p. (dress code)
- 1st Session 2-3pm afternoon tea 3-30 pm,
- 2nd session 3:30- 4:30 pm
Hughes Community Centre Wisdom Street, Hughes
$20 donation ($10 for students) requested plus $2 for afternoon tea payable at the door
- 1st meeting 4 – 5pm (GM crops) C3 Church, 94 Waratah Ave. Dalkeith.
- 2nd meeting 5:30 – 7pm (Climate), C3 Church, 94 Waratah Ave. Dalkeith
a $20 donation ($10 for students) is requested to cover costs – covers both sessions.
3 Nov. TO BE ADVISED.
Please register your interest in the Hobart event with Garth Paltridge (email@example.com)
Nov. 5th 7 for 7:30, Irish Club 175 Elizabeth St. A $20 donation at the door is requested to cover costs.
Nov. 6th 5 for 5:30, TheJ, 60 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads
To book for this event, just click on:
http://sa2.seatadvisor.com/sabo/servlets/EventSearch?presenter=AUNOOSHI&event=mse0611 a $20 donation will buy a ticket.
Event enquiries should be directed to Paul Evans at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Media enquiries should be directed to Case Smit: email@example.com
Patrick Moore is an engaging, articulate and intelligent speaker. His story should be of great interest, particularly now that authorities such as the Bureau of Meteorology are being publicly questioned about their handling of temperature records.
Dr. Patrick Moore
His recent book
Patrick Moore can be seen giving a presentation at the International Conference on Climate Change in July 2014:
The Kyoto Protocol was dreamed up by the Climate Jet-set in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.
One of the first decisions of born-again-green PM, Kevin Rudd, was to commit Australia to Kyoto Phase 1 in 2007. This treaty required signatories to reduce production of carbon dioxide to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.
As a late joiner, Australia got a lower target, involving no actual cuts. And they achieved that easy target by robbing Australian landowners – they stole carbon credits from landowners by imposing tree clearing bans. That larcenous trick can’t be pulled twice.
Ironically, the death notice for the Kyoto misadventure was posted by Japan, the birthplace of Kyoto, when they announced at Cancun in 2010 that Japan would not agree to any further targets. Japan was shocked at the billions in liabilities they had accumulated by not meeting Kyoto 1 target cuts.
Undeterred by this warning, another ALP/Green government agreed to Kyoto 2 in 2012 – 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.
This target, agreed to without due diligence, is dreamland stuff for Australia. Once the growing population is taken into account, this target would require Australians in 2020 to maintain industries and create new jobs using 30% less hydro-carbon energy per capita than was used in 2000.
Mining and mineral processing, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, tourism, electricity generation, cement, forestry and fishing are the backbone industries of Australia.
Not one of these industries could maintain production while also significantly reducing their production of carbon dioxide, unless Australia embarks on a crash program of building new hydro and/or nuclear power stations. The chance that green regulators or politicians will allow either of these options any time soon is zero.
The use of carbon fuels, more than any other indicator, measures the growth and health of modern economies. The only way to kill carbon is to kill the economy – close industries or send them overseas. The Global Financial Crisis probably did more to reduce the use of hydro-carbon fuels than Kyoto will ever do.
Japan’s exit from Kyoto obligations was soon followed by Canada and Russia. USA never signed, nor did China, India, South Africa or Brazil.
Thus the four biggest economies in our region (USA, China, Japan and India) are not burdened by Kyoto. Nor are our big competitors – Brazil (iron and beef), Indonesia (coal), Chile (copper) and Canada (wheat). We only have the Kiwis and the faraway Europeans sharing the sinking Kyoto ship.
The Kyoto Agreement is a failure. Australia repealed the costly carbon dioxide tax. Next we should get rid of Kyoto liabilities.
Read more, as well as:
- Penguins Pray for Global Warming
- The Overflow Column for other items of interest
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kill-kyoto.pdf [PDF, 154KB]
Keywords: Kyoto liabilities, Antarctic ice, penguins, environmental hypocrites, climate summits, false consensus, species extinction, kill climate sceptics, climate summit, natural gas car.
By Paul Driessen
“… But surely the most surreal episode of the march was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. saying Morano and I and thousands like us should be jailed for expressing doubts about “dangerous manmade climate change.”
“I think they should be in jail … with all the other war criminals.” Republican politicians too – “those guys are doing the Koch brothers bidding and are against all the evidence, saying global warming does not exist. They are contemptible human beings,” he fumed.
“So RFK the younger wants to punish us for the “crimes” of exercising our First Amendment rights, demanding actual evidence to support alarmist assertions, saying people’s needs for reliable, affordable energy must be part of the conversation – and insisting that those needs take precedence over absurd claims that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” posing “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola, as Secretary of State John Kerry insists.”
See the full article by Paul Driessen:
THE FALSE CONSENSUS! WHAT A JOKE
The 97% Scientific Consensus that CO2 is
dangerously warming the planet is based on a
postal survey response sample of over 10,000
which was selectively whittled down to just 77
on the basis of the responses to just two
questions, neither of which even mentioned the
supposed villain Carbon-dioxide.
SEE FOR YOURSELF!
3 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nbz6966mLc
Original paper: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/doran.pdf [PDF, 950KB]
[PDF version of this post PDF, 550KB]
Endangered Przewalski horses have become extinct in the wild. Photo: AP
Preservationists think that Herculean efforts should be made to preserve every dying species.
Attempting to preserve environments of the past, they lock up land, sea and mineral resources, prohibit development and oppose water conservation. And now, in a vain attempt to preserve the climate of the recent past, they are crippling our energy supplies with futile mandates and taxes designed to force-feed “green energy”.
They should engage in preservation activities at their own cost with their own property, but should not use governments to force society down this risky road.
Read the full letter-to-the-editor: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/extinction.pdf [PDF, 250KB]
Next Page »
By Ian McClintock.
There is an old scientific tenet that says “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
I commenced an independent, comprehensive investigation of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) some 25 years ago because of the direct potential impact this would have on my farming enterprise.
Farmers work directly with nature and climate as they pursue their farming and grazing activities and if the world was going to warm, possibly catastrophically, it would at the very least mean a substantial change in my enterprise mix and management approach, and at worst, might mean I could no longer continue to farm.
I therefore had a strong vested interest in attempting to understand the science (and politics) behind the claims that were being made so that I could take appropriate action as future climatic events developed and demanded.
It goes without saying that I needed to seek out the actual truth with an open mind as it would be clearly counter- productive to delude myself with preconceived or incorrect ideas and assumptions.
It is a long story but what I found, quite early on in my investigation, is that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), despite having spent many billions of dollars on attempting to find compelling evidence to substantiate their hypothesis, have been totally unable to do so.
At first I could not believe this, I must be wrong, so I carefully and critically re-read the IPCC Reports and much other relevant information. The result was the same, NO valid empirical evidence 1 has ever been cited. I was and am astounded.
A very careful study has shown that ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ has proven to be no more than a politically generated fairy tale, yet the media, most Governments, many scientific organisations, Universities and others continue to ignore any and all evidence that challenges the IPCC claims and blindly accept what they say.
Read the full paper: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/enigma.pdf [PDF, 2.6MB]