By Paul Driessen 30 Apr 2011

We are constantly bombarded with information – much of it inaccurate, misleading, even deliberately so.

We are frequently told we must reduce carbon emissions, support “carbon disclosure” and invest in “carbon trusts” – to prevent catastrophic global warming, global climate change or global climate “disruption.” News stories, advocacy and lobbying activities, and corporate “ethics” promotions frequently use “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” almost interchangeably; some occasionally talk about “dangerous carbon monoxide emissions.”

Torn by misplaced hydrocarbon guilt, wanting to do right ecologically, and often scientifically challenged, people are naturally confused. Because so much is at stake – for our energy supplies and prices, jobs, economies, living standards, budget deficits and environment – clearing up that confusion is a high priority.
(more…)

By Carl Brehmer

“Evidence of widespread control of fire dates to approximately 125,000 years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

Many people assert that environmental extremists want to take civilization back to a pre-industrial state some 150-200 years ago, but the achievement of a “carbon free economy” would take humanity back at least 125,000 years before the discovery and control of fire, because that is the source of the carbon dioxide emissions that have now been declared “pollution.” Even as the somewhat obscure term “cap-and-trade” is a little more clear when called a “carbon tax”, even more clarity would be achieved by calling it a tax on the use of fire, because that is what it is. In their role as fuels, all hydrocarbons are useless until they are burned, which produces the energy that has fuelled human progress and provided the following benefits, which even the environmental extremists and various “rent takers” take for granted:

1) Light; even kerosene lanterns burn fossil fuel and produce carbon dioxide.

2) Heat; ask the victims of hurricane Sandy or anybody who experiences a power outage about the value of heat. Even primitive people use fire for heat.

3) Communication; all modern forms of communication depend upon the power provided by the energy derived from fire.

4) Rapid travel; what form of travel today isn’t powered by the use of fire? Trains, planes and automobiles are all powered with fire.

5) Escape from countless hours of physical labour. Prior to the discovery and use of fire, especially that used to produce electricity, disparate groups of human being were stuck in separate small communities around the world forced to spend most of their time in physical labour.

6) Inventions such as the modern computer and the rapid, worldwide communication network, which includes cell phones, e-mail and the internet would not have been developed nor could they be sustained by the intermittent, low density energy derived from solar cells and wind mills.

7) Satellites, both communication and weather; how many satellites have been launched into space without the use of fire? Many, but not all, are sent to space by hydrocarbon fuels. (Even those satellites that study outgoing long wave radiation and have futilely been attempting to prove that increasing levels of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change.)

8) One of the consequences of using fire as an energy source is that it has provided many people with enough time on their hands to debate whether or not fire is a good thing, i.e., the global warming AKA climate change AKA biodiversity AKA sustainable development debate.

(Remember also that environmental extremists not only want to ban the use of fire for energy production; they want to ban the use of nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy as well.)

The vast amount of energy that the use of fire has placed at the disposal of humanity has been used to revolutionize the nature of our existence. The mere fact that fire was a source of light and heat independent of the sun meant that humans could roam beyond the tropics into the damp, cold regions of the north with seasons of snow and long freezing nights. It was fire and fire alone that enabled man to become a creature native to the entire world and not just the tropics. In addition, the heat of the fire, i.e. cooking, brought about changes in our food supply that made otherwise inedible food palatable and nourishing. Fire has not only increased the variety of food that humans can eat, it also powers the diesel tractors used in modern farming. Our food supply has consequently multiplied beyond the wildest dreams of our ancient ancestors. Current world hunger problems are primarily distribution problems not quantity problems.

Nor has the importance of fire diminished with time; rather the reverse. Wood was no doubt the first fuel used in building and maintaining a fire, but coal took primacy over wood in the 17th century. In the 20th century these two fuels were join by gasoline and oil. In the 21st century shale oil and natural gas are gaining importance.

If the “powers that be” really thought that the continued use of fire was causing a climate catastrophe they would ban its use all together, but it would seem that they just want a piece of the action. The cap-and-trade scheme is not unlike property tax in which the government just lays claim to your property and starts charging you rent, i.e. property tax. (If you think that you own your home just stop paying your property tax and see what happens.) The cap-and-trade scheme is the government just laying claim on all fossil fuel resource within its jurisdiction and charging people a fee to burn them as an energy source.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” (John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 327)

It could be that humans will eventually run out of things to burn, but that day keeps getting pushed back by innovation. For the present I can’t think of a more efficient way to destroy our society’s prosperity, which has brought us all of the above benefits, than to impose a tax on the use of fire. It leaves me wondering; in what kind of society do we now live in which we have to buy a license to use fire as an energy source, something that has been free for 125,000 years? And who exactly are we paying these fees to in order to obtain the privilege of burning that which nature provides?

Carl Brehmer

(Slightly edited from the original.)

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the massive subsidies to the green car industry and to rich buyers of green car toys.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that to waste taxpayer funds helping foreign car manufacturers to produce cars that consumers don’t want is bad policy.

“Worse still is a policy that encourages people to trash a roadworthy car and buy a trendy new one they do not need.”

Forbes explained:

“To collect, transport and scrap one car and build and deliver another one costs a lot in money, metals, and energy.

“These misguided policies benefit car manufacturers, car dealers, car financiers and some consumers. Everyone else, including the environment, is a loser.

“None of the so called green cars are really green.

“Electric motors, compressed air motors and hydrogen “fuel” are promoted as clean and green, but none of them are sources of energy. All of them need conventional electric power to provide their stored energy.

“Electric cars must fill their batteries from a power point. Compressed air cars must fill their tanks from a compressor which probably uses electricity. And a hydrogen car, if one ever appears, must fill its tank from a refinery using heaps of electricity to produce hydrogen from water or hydrocarbons.

“And where will the electricity come from? In Australia right now 93% of electricity comes from combustion of hydrocarbons such as coal, gas and oil. That will not change dramatically or quickly without putting the lights out. And a dramatic switch to “green” cars plus bans and taxes on hydrocarbon energy increases the chance of that.

“Electric cars are nifty and quiet, and may reduce harmful concentrations of hot exhaust gases in city air, but in Australia they will run mainly on carbon fuel. There will be zero reduction in the production of carbon dioxide (as if that matters anyway).

“The market is the best judge whether diesel, hybrid, electric, petrol or compressed air cars are used. The answer will vary from family to family and from city to country.

“For too long governments have been throwing subsidies at foreign car companies and “green” car buyers. Now they are pushing low cost cars out of the market with their “big bucks for old bombs” giveaway.

“Subsidies always encourage waste of the subsidised product – it is not a sustainable policy. The marginal savings in fuel consumption will never compensate for this extravagance.

“Green car subsidies are dud policies and should be subject to an immediate recall notice.”

Full article: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/green-cars.pdf [PDF, 248 KB]

Mark Lawson

The Federal Government may have dumped (technically deferred) one nutty green scheme (emissions trading) but an equally nutty scheme remains in place – requiring electricity distributors to buy green electricity.

This scheme is nutty because no one has shown that green electricity supplied to an operating power network actually reduces emissions. The government, various green lobby groups and the mass of voters have simply assumed that it does. There are doubts about efficiency losses due to the whole network having to be retailored to accommodate renewables. And more doubts over just how much additional backup generator capacity will be required for intermittent power sources. These doubts are either ignored or dismissed as “myths”.

…

The Australian government has dived head-first into renewables with both eyes shut, and with the general approval of the voters, who mostly have no idea of what they have approved or how much it will cost. The government should drop the whole renewable energy scheme as too complicated and expensive and unlikely to save much carbon.

The full article: blowing-away-money.pdf [PDF: KB]

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist with The Australian Financial Review. He has written: “A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy – bad forecasting, terrible solutions”.
Connor Court – $29.95. http://www.connorcourt.com/ or book stores.

Pretend you were determined to embark on a crash program to increase the price of electricity in order to deter consumers and businesses from using it. Here is a five point plan for achieving that sort of destruction:

First, pay millions in compensation to force closure of reliable coal fired power stations producing cheap electricity.

Second, spend millions more in subsidies to bribe promoters to erect forests of imported wind turbines that produce no electricity for 75% of the time. Then pay again to have them switched off when the wind is too strong or if they produce more power than the network needs at that time.

Third, spend more millions to build a spider web of roads and transmission lines to connect every single turbine to the national grid. These costly facilities are only used for 25% of the time.

Fourth, spend yet more millions to build new gas fired backup generators to keep the lights on when the wind stops. Then pay again to switch off the gas any time the wind happens to blow at the right speed for the turbines.

Finally, force any remaining coal or gas power stations to buy carbon ration permits from merchant banks.

Climate will still change no matter how many wind temples we build to the Global Warming god.

When we have pauperised ourselves by wasting our savings to inflict unreliable high cost electricity on our industries and our people, we will have no resources left to cope with the inevitable natural disasters that will still occur.

This five point plan is what passes for rational energy policy from the Green/Labor Coalition now in control of the Australian Parliament.

More:

• Plain Talk on the Carbon Tax
• Taking the Wind out of Wind Energy
• The Global Warming Tipping Point?
• The Conveys of No Confidence
• “Stick with the Science – it is all Peer Reviewed.”
• Lord Monckton wins Press Club debate

See here: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/five-point-plan.pdf [PDF, 49 KB]

1. Solar Panels – another Silly Roof Scheme

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for the immediate suspension of another of Mr Garrett’s silly roof schemes – the Roof Solar Panel Scheme.

“This scheme is driven by the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, Renewable Energy Certificates and obligations on power companies to buy the inconsistent dribbles of electricity produced by solar panels on domestic homes.”

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that like the roof insulation scheme, the Roof Solar Panel Scheme was dangerous, ill planned and a massive waste of community funds…

2. Petition on the Flawed Carbon Trading Scheme

Liberal MP, Dr Denis Jensen, has drawn up a petition on the Flawed Carbon Trading Scheme.

To sign go to: http://petitions.listentous.org.au/signatories/index/pid/16

3. The Big Picture on World Temperature Swings.

Jo Nova has published a set of graphs produced by David Lappi, an Alaskan Geologist.

4. Tampering with the Temperature Records

Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have produce a masterful analysis of the state of the world instrument temperature records that have been used to support the claims that the world has warmed alarmingly since man started using large quantities of carbon fuels…

5. Chief Warmist Surrenders

Faced with the above and other fast mounting evidence, Professor Phil Jones of CRU, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair and a key promoter of the Global Warming Scare, has conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in world temperature since 1995…

6. Big Business gets Nervous

The collapse of the so-called Consensus, the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Confab, the emerging evidence of the foolishness of wasting tax payers funds on wind/solar “power” and ethanol production, the Climategate Scandal, the roof insulation fiasco in Australia, the Carbon Credit frauds, the lack of evidence to support the weekly scare forecasts and the rapid change in public opinion is having an effect on big business support for the Global Warming Scam…

7. The Carbon Wall of Shame

We need a list of the chief promoters of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme and the Climate Change Industry in Australia so that shareholders, customers, employees, tax payers and voters can start putting pressure on directors, politicians, academics and officials who betray us all by refusing to do their homework…

Full newsletter: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/silly-roof-schemes.pdf [PDF, 205 KB]

Question:
I think that companies that are making millions of dollars should be forced to use renewable energy, and/or invest in it; they should be doing their bit for the planet. The government should not be forcing householders to pay a tax or more for living, food, electricity etc., especially when they can’t stop what big business does to the environment, or what the government spends the carbon money on.

You can’t be serious that the burning of fossil fuels doesn’t hurt the environment; even if you don’t believe in climate change, this would be one point that I don’t agree with. Also I don’t agree that the planet needs more emissions to be able to grow food, as plants were growing on this planet long before companies started burning fossil fuels to fuel factories.
(more…)

Today, laser hair removal at home is gaining much popularity. Laser hair removal is a permanent and long term process and has many drawbacks. In this article, we will review the Best Nose hair Trimmer removal devices for home use.

• Tanda Me My Elos Syneron Touch Hair Removal System

Most laser hair removal systems do not work with dark toned skin. However, this gadget is ideal for dark toned people.  Here, ELOS technology is used to remove unwanted hair. More or less it is similar to IPL pulse technology; the only major difference is that the former is color blind.

• Remington iLIGHT Pro Plus Quartz Hair Removal System

It does not use laser flash; it uses quartz light from an ordinary glass bulb. It uses IPL pulses to remove hair. Generally, IPL pulses take more time than direct laser. However, it is tricky to use it at pinpoint areas. It covers a large area but with less accuracy. It comes with a skin tone sensor. However, this model might not suit the dark skin toned user or the user with light unwanted hair. Treatments for adverse results of laser hair removal are less painful because direct laser is not used.

• Tria Beauty Hair Removal Laser 4X

Tria Laser hair removal system was the first LHR system that got approved by FDA for effective and safe use. Most lasers won’t work with dark skin tone. However, this model comes with a built in skin sensor and works with almost all skin tones. It comes with an awesome digital interface and strength settings. Due to its small size, you will be able to use it in small target areas. It is a cordless device.

• Silk’n Flash & Go Hair Removal Device Original

It is yet another laser hair removal device which uses IPL pulses for hair removal. It is a corded device. It is the least expensive model in our list. It comes with a skin sensor and is not appropriate for dark toned and light skin users. It comes with a wide head so the concentration of flash is less accurate for pinpoint areas.

• Philips Lumea Comfort IPL Hair Removal System

As the name suggests, this device uses IPL pulses for hair removal. The best thing is it is affordable. It comes with slide & flash mode that lets you glide the device over your skin. It flashes IPL pulses on its way. Basically, you won’t have to deal with each and every patch of your skin like other laser hair removal devices. It comes with 5 skin intensity settings and might not work for dark toned users and users with soft unwanted hair.

Earth Hour is a sacred rite of the global warming religion whose message is: confess, do penance (turn out the lights for an hour once a year), and your sins will be forgiven.
(more…)

Why do taxpayers have to subsidize this? Why do environmentalists give it a free pass?
By Ron Arnold

It uses tons of fossil fuels every day, emits a greenhouse gas that’s like CO2 on steroids, can’t do the job it’s made for, costs taxpayers exorbitant fees, and makes the federal government look mentally ill for giving it outrageous subsidies. It also chops up birds, bats and scenery with roads and monstrous 400-foot-tall machines. “It” is wind power, of course.

These harsh facts were condensed into a preliminary draft study of wind subsidies by researcher Teresa Platt, who circulated it to specialists for vetting. I obtained a copy of the extensively footnoted working draft, which gave chilling reality to the truth behind wind industry claims.

“Every year since the 1980s,” Platt’s study said, “the 5,000 turbines at NextEra’s Altamont Pass in California kill thousands of slow-reproducing red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls, kestrels, as well as iconic golden eagles, and bats.” The birds Platt mentions are raptors – birds of prey – particularly valued for their agricultural role in killing mice and other crop-damaging rodents. Eagles, both golden eagles and bald eagles, have long impressed Americans for their majesty, and the bald eagle was selected by our Founding Fathers as our national emblem.

I asked Bob Johns, spokesman for the American Bird Conservancy, about wind farm eagle mortality. He confirmed Platt’s study and told me the Altamont operation alone has killed more than 2,000 golden eagles. But that’s not all. “Nationwide, the wind industry kills thousands of golden eagles without prosecution,” Johns said, “while any other American citizen even possessing eagle parts such as feathers would face huge fines and prison time.”

Huge is right. Violate either the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Eagle Protection Act, and you could get fined up to $250,000 or get two years imprisonment.

Not a single wind farm operator has yet been prosecuted for killing birds, yet in 2009 ExxonMobil got whacked with a $600,000 fine for killing 85 common ducks and other birds that flew into uncovered tanks on its property. Other similarly outrageous revenge-style penalties have been assessed on oil companies by the viciously ideological anti-fossil fuel Obama administration.
(more…)