Meta |
GREENS LAUNCH ATTACK ON… Trucks?Electric vehicles might be okay for suburb hopping in big cities, but I doubt there is a farm in Australia that would be able to run without any petrol or diesel. The Greens’ calls to ‘rapidly transition to electric vehicles‘ for their net zero economy by 2035 shows they have no clue of the energy requirements in transport, industry and agriculture. Following is Malcolm Robert’s speech to the Australian Senate: RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT ON VENUS? THE EVIDENCE SAYS NO!By Dr. John Happs Venus is named after the ancient Roman Goddess of love and beauty, also called Aphrodite by the Ancient Greeks. Presumably, the “love and beauty” term came from the fact that Venus is the brightest of all the planets in the night sky. The Italian Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was the first astronomer to observe Venus through a telescope and he observed that the planet had phases like our Moon. This observation supported the revolutionary (and politically dangerous) idea that Venus and other planets orbited the Sun. (more…) Time for Climate SenseBy Viv Forbes Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist who first claimed that the burning of hydro-carbons like coal, oil, gas, peat and wood may cause global warming. In 1895 he calculated (incorrectly) that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would lead to a 4-5 oC rise in global temperature. However, Arrhenius suggested that this increase could be beneficial, making the various climates on Earth “more equable” and stimulating plant growth and food production. (more…) LET’S GET REAL ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDEMost of the CO2 is not in the atmosphere. 98% of all CO2 is in the oceans (38,000 billion tons), and plants and soils (2,000 billion tons). Only 850 billion tons of CO2 is in the atmosphere (2% of the total CO2), and of that, less than 10% is man-made! Over 90% of the atmospheric CO2 is produced naturally from decaying vegetation, fires, volcanoes, and the oceans. Also 80% of the world’s active volcanoes are under the sea bubbling out both liquid and gaseous CO2 and methane (and the sea is still alkaline). Indeed combustion reactions (power stations, fires, cars etc) produce CO2 and water, but it is the fine pollutant particles and chemicals (like oxides of sulphur and nitrogen) resulting from incomplete combustion that are the major problems affecting local temperatures, weather, as well as human health. Ruminating animals produce more greenhouse gases that all the buses, trucks and cars in the world combined! Water by far the major greenhouse gas, cannot be controlled or taxed, so CO2 is measurable, blamed and potentially made taxable, even though most of it naturally occurring. But by contrast, in the sea, plankton growth from extra CO2 has grown tenfold over 50 years, and this is the main supplier of the oxygen that we breathe. Higher crop yields and greater vegetation growth rates have been reported worldwide due to the increased CO2 over the last 3 or so decades. Dr Geoff Duffy, Professor Emeritus – Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland Fellow of the Royal Society, DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip, FRSNZ, FIChemE, CEng Grazing Animals are Carbon Neutral and should not be TaxedEvery atom of carbon emitted by grazing animals was taken from the pasture that animal consumed. Which was taken from the atmosphere. Therefore all grazing animals are carbon neutral. This leaflet by Jim Hawes explains it simply: The Science is Settled?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:
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. Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Warming? The Data Say NOOn 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 [1]. This is consistent with satellite lower tropospheric temperature data for the South Polar region at Dr Roy Spencer’s Web site [2] 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 [3]. 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 [4] and Mawson [5]. Comparison of the CO2 concentration with the station’s average temperature data, available at the Bureau of Meteorology Web site [6], 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. Sources: Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist. Formerly: The Climate Change EnigmaBy 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. Why? Read the full paper: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/enigma.pdf [PDF, 2.6MB] Global Hot AirBACK in the 1980s anthropogenic global warming was resurrected. Its emphasis was that man-made CO2 would dangerously heat up the world and had to be controlled. And there was lots of money available if this could be proved. So a multi-billion dollar industry was born. The first thing was to speed up the rate of warming. This was done by ignoring a large number of temperature measuring stations from cold areas like Siberia, places with altitude such as Bolivia and only one above the Arctic Circle. So far so good. Two distractions were the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. Michael Mann removed those with his hockey stick graph. It has since been shown that feeding random numbers into his program always resulted in a hockey stick. It rapidly went from the 1995 IPCC report’s cover and Al Gore’s presentations into obscurity. There was also a problem with the record high temperatures from the 1930s–1940s. To lower them, the major measuring agencies started to adjust the original temperatures. This can be legitimate if weather stations have been moved or their surroundings compromised. A photographic record of every station in the US shows that 80% are no longer correctly positioned mostly due to urbanisation (green fields are now asphalt parking lots). Logically the old readings should have been regarded as valid and current readings would need to be lowered. They’ve done the opposite. They started reducing the temperatures pre-1960 (give or take) and increasing them since then. NOAA for example was adjusting temperatures this way by 0.01 Fahrenheit per month, but then went to doing it twice a month. But hey, when you’re on a good thing, do it more often! The Australian, NZ and GB BOMs, and the US’s NOAA and NASA have all been doing this. They have also stopped providing historical data to other weather forecasters. Parts of NOAA were so concerned with their official figures they established 100 green field stations across the US. After 10 years they show a steady drop, whereas the “official” adjusted figures just keep rising. Satellite measurements, which are difficult to fudge, are also showing a stable or dropping temperature pattern. So what does this all mean? Our temperature records have been modified to meaningless; the computer models are useless (87 of 89 major models can’t get within two standard deviations of actuals); the actuals haven’t risen for 17 years; our governments do not class CO2 as a pollutant (look it up); environmentalists should embrace the benefits of more CO2; windmills and commercial solar should be junked. Let’s get back to using coal and gas, which are more reliable, cheaper and are less dangerous (actually beneficial) to our environment. We have experimented with square wheels and they have been a failure; we need to get back to ones that make the world go round. John Ibbotson, Gulmarrad NSW In 2007 John wrote and published one of the first Australian books sceptical of AGW: Planning Ahead For Future Generations, by Highlighting Climate Change Myths. John is still actively involved in slaying global warming myths and fighting for a better deal for Murray Darling irrigators. |
RSS
