By Dr. John Happs

It would appear that climate alarmists and associated vested interest groups might have decided that an increasing number of politicians and members of the public no longer see the trivial amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide as having much of a role to play in our ever-changing climate and the weather extremes the planet has always experienced. (more…)

There is no Climate Crisis, Just an Climate Education Crisis.

More from the same creator, John Shewchuk: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlII6yvG0pME2W8EOKS5xPQ4TCh7EmsjJ

The Bushfire Front Inc has produced a submission to the Federal government in relation to their inquiry into the impact of fire regimes on biodiversity in Australia.

The paper the government attached to the call for submissions was terrible. If this represents the level of impartial scholarship and understanding of bushfire science in the Commonwealth public service, then the country is in a worse position than I thought.

Please feel free to circulate this submission as you see fit. We regard it as a public document.

Roger Underwood
Chair, The Bushfire Front Inc

Submission document: https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bushfire-front-submission.pdf [PDF, 170 kB]

By Viv Forbes

By the time solar energy reaches Earth’s surface it is spread very thin – even midday sunshine will not boil the billy or make toast. And solar collectors will only convert about 20% of that weak energy into electricity. Thus thousands of solar panels are needed to collect significant energy, and lots more to charge the expensive batteries needed to maintain electricity supply overnight and during cloudy weather. Despite these disadvantages, force-feeding of “green” energy by all levels of government has given Australia nearly three million solar collectors (mainly imported from China).

It requires scads of land to generate significant electricity from the sun’s weak rays. But even in sunny weather they produce nothing for 16 hours every day. And a sprinkling of dust, pollen, ash or salt, or a few splatters of poop from birds or flying foxes can reduce output by 50%, while night, snow or heavy cloud cover snuffs them out completely. (more…)

By Dr John Happs

I’m often asked:
“Why do so many people still believe that we are facing a climate crisis?”

And:

“Why is so much money being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions when many other factors control climate change?”

My answers to these questions rest with the following facts:

1. The general public has little understanding of science and do not appreciate the complexity of climate science. Few understand that climate alarmism is essentially driven by politics and financial opportunism.
2. Media reporters (there are few investigative journalists) are always looking for alarmist headlines. Unfortunately, the public largely obtains its (dis)information about climate change through newspapers, radio and television.
3. Politicians are always “sniffing the breeze” to see which way public sentiment about climate change is going. If the public is alarmed, they can reassure us that they can save us from climate Armageddon. This usually entails the wasting of vast amounts of taxpayer’s money.

Since its inception in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has followed the directive it was given by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This stated explicitly that the IPCC’s brief is to:

“Assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (My emphasis) (UNFCCC, 2020)

Should the IPCC find no evidence for human-induced climate change there would be no reason for the IPCC to continue, so we can understand the efforts that have been made over the years for those on the IPCC gravy-train to secure a link between human carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

Not surprisingly, the IPCC could find no evidence for human-induced climate change because there is none so. . . .

Read More:
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-suns-influence-on-climate-and-why-the-evidence-is-ignored-by-the-ipcc/

By PROF. DR. IR. GUUS BERKHOUT

The letter below by Prof. Berkhout was published recently in the largest Dutch daily, de Telegraaf:

In recent years we have seen the strangest things happening to our universities. Professors must be extremely careful about what they teach. If they present scientific results that do not fit the ideology of activist movements, their lives are made difficult and they even run the risk of being excommunicated. Joining the consensus is by far the safest. The Boards of Governors do not protect their professors; on the contrary, they are solidly behind the activists.

The University of Amsterdam believes that every student should become ‘woke’. It is no longer about developing talents, but about making white, heterosexual, serious students feel guilty. After all, their ancestors have blood on their hands and they are the new generation of oppressors. Radboud University in Nijmegen has bowed to climate activism and has just decided that all students must be taught the sustainability narrative. The climate crisis is central to this, whether that is scientifically correct or not, that does not matter in Nijmegen.
(more…)

Dr Patrick Moore has Ph.D. in ecology and is a veteran of peace and environmental activism having faced down the harpoons of whaling ships as a founding member of Greenpeace. In this video explains the benefits of increasing levels of CO2 in the environment.

By Andrew Kenny

We need to be careful. Climate alarm is nonsense. The idea that rising CO₂ will cause dangerous change is nonsense. Actually, it will have no [significant] effect on the climate but a wonderful effect on plant life.

But the recent rise in CO₂ (since about 1850) is because of man burning fossil fuels. (It is not because of volcanoes.) We can see that by the fact the extra CO₂ contains no C14. We can also see that in the graphs of temperatures and CO₂ levels over the last ten thousand years. We must not only accept that but be proud of it. Rising CO₂ has done the planet a power of good. (more…)

By Will Happer

Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today. Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics too.

We are lucky that Einstein left a rich legacy of pithy quotes that reveal how he would probably relate to today’s cult of global warming alarmists.

Take the oft repeated propaganda that 97 percent of scientists support global-warming alarmism.

Quite aside from the falseness of the claim, Einstein would have remembered the famous attack on himself, “A Hundred Scientists Against Einstein,” published in Germany in 1931. His response was, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

His view of groupthink was summarized in another comment: “In order to be a member of a flock of sheep, one must, above all, be a sheep oneself!” (more…)

Click the image to download the PDF which includes an order form. Or visit https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Green-Murder–Ian-Plimer_p_463.html