The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the UN Warsaw climate conference and some world media of callous exploitation of human suffering in the recent typhoon in order to promote their international carbon tax levelling plans.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the leaders of the global warming scare campaign who are blaming the use of carbon fuels for Typhoon Haiyan should read their own IPCC scientific report which makes no such claim.

Damaging typhoons have been a fact of life in the Western Pacific for all of recorded history. In 1274, Japan was saved from invasion by Kublai Khan when a typhoon destroyed a huge Mongol invasion fleet. A second bigger fleet in 1281 was destroyed by another typhoon which was named Kamikaze or “divine wind” by the grateful Japanese. Typhoons were also frequent and severe during the Little Ice Age around 1670.
(more…)

The Case for Repeal

We support the immediate repeal of the carbon tax. This tax was introduced by stealth, and the justification for its introduction is spurious. It should be repealed or made ineffective immediately.

We are told its purpose is to “reduce carbon pollution” – just three words, each of which is based on a lie.

• “Reduce”: The effect of Australia’s carbon tax on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so tiny as to be undetectable and any miniscule reduction would be totally swamped in the far bigger natural seasonal variations of carbon dioxide levels. The effect on global climate, if any, would also be too small to be measured and of no benefit to the climate or life on Earth.
• “Carbon”: It is NOT a tax on carbon. Carbon is a solid – either soft and black like graphite and soot, or crystalline, hard and beautiful like diamond. It is definitely not the colourless gas created when carbon is burned. The “carbon” tax falls mainly on carbon dioxide, a colourless, harmless natural gas which has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere, usually in far greater amounts than at present. The use of “carbon” when referring to “carbon dioxide” is a deliberate deception. It would be like calling liquid water by the name “hydrogen”, a major element in the water molecule which is a dangerous explosive flammable gas. Based on the carbon example, a tax on water vapour (another “greenhouse gas) would probably be called “The Hydrogen Tax” by government propagandists.
• “Pollution”: Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and should never have been called one. It is the essential gas-of-life for all plants and they support all animals on Earth. It is no more a pollutant than oxygen, which is the gas-of-life for animals, or water vapour which is essential for all life. All three gases have effects on earth’s surface temperature, and on surface life, and such effects are usually highly beneficial. Additional carbon dioxide has been improving and will continue to improve the growth rate and drought tolerance of all plants on earth. Far from polluting the Earth, extra carbon dioxide has been greening the globe for decades.

There has been no attempt at an independent cost benefit analysis to justify the tax.

More, as well as:

• Petition
• John Howard Joins the Deniers (well almost)
• The Many Benefits of CO2
• Keeping a Sense of Perspective on Global Warming
• Funds Flow in, in Enormous Dollops

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cold-turkey2.pdf [PDF, 140KB]

Keywords: Carbon Tax, deceptive advertising, cost-benefits, enquiry into the science, pollution, National Pollution Inventory Scheme, Kyoto Agreement, price surveillance, IPCC, Climate Change Authority, Direct Action, renewable energy targets.

Carbon Dioxide is not Pollution

The Carbon Sense Coalition has accused those waging a war on carbon dioxide of being “anti-green”.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that carbon dioxide is the gas of life, feeding every green plant, producing food for every animal and in the process releasing oxygen, another gas of life, into the atmosphere.

A recent report on measuring global vegetation growth notes that data from remote sensing devices show significant increase in annual vegetation growth during the last three decades. They also report that CO2 fertilization is more important than climate variation in determining the magnitude of the vegetation growth. “The CO2 fertilization effect of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil, is beginning to assume its vaulted position of being a tremendous boon to the biosphere…”

More, as well as:

• Correlation, Causation or a Carbon Tax Con-Job?
• Carbon Tax gets two Vetoes
• Absolute Safety is a Terrible Risk – the Costs of Environmental Scaremongering
• The Last Word: The Big Dollars are against us

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/greening-the-globe.pdf [PDF, 50KB]

Keywords: Pollution, London, Pittsburgh, Asian smog, carbon dioxide, plant fertiliser, climate correlations and causes, carbon tax, electoral veto, Climate Council, safety and risk.

Environmental exaggeration and scare campaigns are a danger to our health, happiness and prosperity and usually harm the environment.

The media are rightfully sceptical to anything said by private corporations. But they believe without question everything served up by self-serving green entrepreneurs and corporations.

Prepare to be shocked about fracking, green energy, nuclear power safety.

Does carbon dioxide control global temperature. Not according to this graph (the correlation is negative for a considerable portion of the last 50 years):

[Click image for larger version.]

More information: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_August_2013.pdf

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian government to stop wasting money on IPCC activities – “no submissions, no delegates, no funds”.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the repeated failures of the IPCC theories and climate models shows that the money spent on these activities would be better spent on disaster-proofing public infrastructure – “whatever we spend on IPCC activities is too much”.

Quote:

The science debate is over. They lost.

Decades ago the IPCC proposed a theory that Earth’s temperature is controlled by the 0.04% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This theory was used to make predictions by at least 73 computer models.

Thirty years of observations has proven every prediction wrong.

Therefore their theory is wrong. That is how science works.

Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew have switched to politics.

The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a faceless committee of international bureaucrats for their government masters, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.

Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.

They will lose again. It is time to stop wasting money on a lost cause.

Viv Forbes,
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

For a comical glimpse of the IPCC Consensus see:
http://www.energytribune.com/79293/ipcc-5th-assessment-is-very-confident-that-theyre-not-sure

For those who would like to read more on how sanity is being restored, one by one.

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds;
it will be seen that they go mad in herds,
while they only recover their senses slowly,
and one by one.” Charles Mackay

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=e0b4634c3e

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=16e80c55-9ebf-42e4-852e-1f6e960b0902

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

The Last Word.

Ford Develops Green Car

It runs on Naturally Occurring Organic Compounds

DEARBORN, MI—The Ford Motor Company announced on Wednesday that it has developed a new SUV that will be powered exclusively by gasoline, a 100% reliable, oil-based energy source. “We’re very proud to introduce the Ford Petrola, a vehicle that runs on a specialized fuel derived almost entirely from naturally occurring organic compounds,” said Raj Nair, the company’s vice president of global product development. “Whether you’re commuting to work or heading out for a little adventure on the weekend, just fill the Petrola with gasoline and you’ll be ready to go. Best of all, this pure hydrocarbon fuel source is currently available at more than 100,000 filling stations across America.” Nair also noted that prototypes of the new vehicle have been able to travel more than 300 miles on a single “power charge” of gasoline.

Source:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ford-develops-new-suv-that-runs-purely-on-gasoline,33568/

Far too many people and government bodies treat the IPCC as if it was the epitome of good science, impartial analysis and an open mind as to what drives climate cycles.

But shouldn’t you be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that:

• it is impartial when it is clearly not
• that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do
• that its climate models are accurate when they are not
• that all reviewers support the IPCC’s fundamental claims when very few explicitly do so
• that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together
• that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct?

Here are 50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC’s activities and claims.

See: http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

Climate Alarmists Rebuffed in Australian Election

The climate alarmists and carbon taxers have suffered a body blow in the recent Australian elections – it was a turning point in the war on carbon.

The victorious leader, Tony Abbott, had made it absolutely clear throughout the campaign and in the days immediately after his victory, that abolishing the carbon tax is one of his immediate priorities. Many factors played a part in his victory, but his outspoken and steadfast opposition to the carbon tax was an important one.

Thank you to our supporters for all the congratulatory comments about the role of “Carbon Sense” in preparing the way for this public revolt. Here are a couple:

Well Done Oz, well done Carbon Sense.
I congratulate Australia for chucking out those who were destroying your country, and congratulate you and “Carbon Sense” for the unyielding, persistent stream of useful scientific and logical argument against the climate lobby. Your message has been so powerful and so well presented for so long, surely it played a significant part in keeping the majority on the side of reason?
M.R.

I have followed your crusade and cheered for you. After all, your personal energy and determination must have had an important role in reminding your fellow Australians that the scare tactics and policies of climate change fanaticism are nothing more than a scheme of the political left. I am amazed by your lasting commitment to defend the professional and scientific truth about carbon, and challenge the claims and lies of demagogic politicians and opportunistic “scientists”. I must thank you for your efforts and would be honoured if we could maintain our professional link and friendship.
M.M.

And a General Comment:

Maybe you should change your name from “Carbon Sense” to simply “good sense”.
Even though I think you’re stark raving mad sometimes – other times I think you’re maybe the only sane one left! You remind me of Sisyphus at times!! Keep up the battle.
K.C.

There was good news and bad news in the election.

The good news was that the Labor/Green/Independent coalition that had led Australia into the unwinnable war on carbon was decisively rejected. The Labor vote fell to its lowest level for a century, the Green vote fell 3% and the independents who helped create and support this destructive green coalition are no longer in Parliament.

The other feature of this campaign was the high public interest in the election and the big dissatisfaction with all major parties. Lots of small single-issue parties were formed and contested the election. Most of these small parties were also opposed to the carbon tax.

And a few of them were smart enough to maintain strict discipline among themselves on how preference votes were directed, ensuring that some of them were elected to the Senate.

There was one bad note in the election. Two prominent new small parties, the Palmer United Party (PUP) and the Katter Australia Party (KAP) foolishly directed significant preferences to the ALP and/or Greens ahead of the Liberal/Nationals. This was done partly out of spite, but mainly in a big gamble that did not always pay off.

Bob Katter’s largely conservative supporters reacted badly to him “assisting the enemy” and his primary vote fell dramatically. His hold on his own electorate has become marginal. Clive Palmer’s pact with the Greens got less publicity before the election and he did surprisingly well all over Australia. He probably got one Senator elected because of his shady deal with the green devils, but then in another state a Green Senator will probably be elected on Palmer preferences. So we may be stuck for six years with at least one Green senator who should not have been elected.

Another feature of the election was the minimal support for the anti-coal-seam-gas party.

Now we need to make sure the new government dismantles the whole climate industry.

Stop Press: Germany’s conservatives also just won a massive victory in their latest election. Greens lost heavily, their vote falling from 16% in polls early in the year to 8% now (from 11% last election). More:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-wins-third-term-in-general-election-a-923755.html

More, as well as:

• How to Untangle the Climate Bureaucracy: Last In, First Out
• Abolish the Unreliable Energy Targets
• Arctic Ice Confounds Costly Computers
• Taxing Air
• We Have a New Consensus: 99% of Climate Models Overestimated Global warming
• The Last Word

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/carbon-quake.pdf [PDF, 101kB]

Keywords: Australian Election, Green vote falls, dismantling the climate bureaucracy, renewable energy targets, Arctic ice, taxing air, climate models fail.

By Kimball Rasmussen | President and CEO, Deseret Power | November 2010
With Acknowledgement to: John Droz at the Alliance for Wise Energy: http://www.wiseenergy.org/

“Wind energy has a highly intermittent output that significantly mismatches demand and delivers energy largely when it is less needed. Wind cannot satisfy the demand requirements of a utility unless it is backed up with fossil fuel plants and/or energy storage projects. This results in duplication of resources and additional costs, with little, if any, carbon mitigation. Further, the steep increases and declines in power delivery of wind put the reliability of the grid in question. The tactic of switching off excess wind supply only diminishes the already weak pattern of intermittency and adds to the per kWh cost of wind. Typically, wind resources are located far away from where the power is needed and require significant additional costs of building new transmission. Intermittency, duplication and grid operations all significantly increase the already high cost of wind energy.

“Wind becomes even more questionable when proven solutions like natural gas can deliver even greater reductions in emissions at half the cost.

“While solar power is much more grid friendly than wind, it is generally the most expensive form of renewable energy. Solar energy quasi-matches system peak load periods, but the peak solar output significantly misses actual electric system load peaks. In addition, solar facilities still produce only about 18 to 25 percent of the time. Without electricity storage, solar energy will not be able to do more than serve as a supplement to other forms of energy. It is not currently a full-scale alternative to baseload energy.

“A Renewable Portfolio Standard, or mandate of 20 percent, can result in a utility-scale duplication of net investment in generating plant of 100 percent or more. The mandate can also cause the wide variation of rate impacts, depending on availability of renewable energy projects and other utility specific parameters.”

Full detailed report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rational-look-at-renewable-energy.pdf [PDF, 3.5MB]

Election Day – “Put every Labor/Green candidate last”

Our advice on how-to-vote for climate sceptics and against climate alarmists provoked a lot of feedback and comment, mostly positive.

This was the most dramatic response:

Best Election Advice, Edgecliffe NSW

Lots of small parties wrote to tell us how much they opposed the war on carbon and the futile attempts to use taxes to change our climate. We were told that Rise Up Australia Party and Palmer United Party are opposed to all the carbon tax/trading stuff. Good – support their candidates if you like their other policies. Also Cori Bernardi is worth supporting. Our concern with many small parties is that they may have preference deals with the ALP/greens (Palmer votes could end up with Greens, Katter votes could end up with ALP, and even our favoured Climate Sceptics have preferenced Labor above LNP in half of the states, because of the silly utterings of Greg Hunt and his Direct Action Dreams).

There are two ways to handle this Senate election. The lazy way is just vote LNP 1 above the line. That should ensure the defeat of the ALP/Green coalition. But to really vote against the climate alarmists, be selective and vote below the line, numbering all squares. Start with all the sceptic parties you know and vote for their candidates in order. Then vote LNP (this is most important to ensure your vote does not cascade down and accidentally elect an ALP/Green candidate). Then fill out all the other squares in any order PUTTING THE GREENS LAST. We have no other changes to previous advice. If you cannot be bothered taking some time to work it out, vote 1 above the line for the LNP.

We recommend this useful tool for the thinking voter. Decide your priorities and it will show you how to vote: https://www.clueyvoter.com/

Other feedback here:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/senate-voting-for-no-carbon-tax-climate.html

More, as well as:

• Taxing Air
• Gambling at 50:1
• Coal Saves Forests from the Furnaces
• Burying the Gas of Life
• Restrictive Work Practices killing Green Energy?
• After The Ball is Over

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/climate-policy-folly.pdf [PDF, 51kB]

Keywords: Put greens last, how-to-vote, Labor, Greens, LNP, no-carbon-tax-party, coal saves forests, CCS, green energy failures, after the ball, Taxing Air, Cost/benefit climate policies 50/1.