“Well, the thing is we’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the
way the earth’s system works…”

“When we come to the last few years, where we haven’t seen a continuation
of that warming trend, we don’t understand all of the factors that
create earth’s climate, so there are some things we don’t understand,
that’s what the scientists were emailing each other about, you know, we
just don’t understand the way the whole system works, and we’re trying
to find out.”

“These people work with models, computer modelling, when the computer
modelling and the real world data disagrees you’ve got a very
interesting problem, that’s when science really gets engaged. What Kevin
Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world, is
saying is, ‘Guys, we have to get on our horses and find out what we
don’t know about the system, we have to actually understand why the
cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn’t reflect it.'”

“…sure for the last few years we have gone through a slight cooling
trend…”

Tim Flannery, ABC Lateline 23 Nov 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2751390.htm

By John Bignell

Source: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

Full report as PDF: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/global-warming-religion.pdf [59 KB]

“The individual sea level records obtained from the SEAFRAME study on 12 Pacific Islands have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993. This assessment studies individual records and finds that all of them show no change of sea level in almost all of the records following the 1998 cyclones. It is considered that cyclones and tsunamis not only induce false readings which should be ignored when calculating a trend, but they also disrupt the leveling of the equipment so that previous years’ figures should also not form part of a trend.”

See the full article South Pacific Sea Level: A Reassessment by Vincent R Gray:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sea-levels-gray.pdf [PDF, 1.1 MB]

In addition, Cliff Ollier reports:

“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.”

See the full article Sea Level in the Southwest Pacific is Stable by Cliff Ollier:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sea-levels-ollier.pdf [PDF, 881 KB]

Here is a the very latest sea Level data from “The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project” produced by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology with technical support from the National Tidal centre and funded by the Australian Agency for International Development. There is no evidence of any dramatic increases in sea levels.

(From http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml Nov, 2009)

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Full article: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has told German businessmen that they may have to rely on Russian firewood for heating if they do not want to construct new nuclear power plants or bring in Russian gas supplies. At a business conference organized in Berlin by the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Putin recognised that “the German public does not like the nuclear power industry for some reason.” He continued: “But I cannot understand what fuel you will take for heating. You do not want gas, you do not develop the nuclear power industry, so you will heat with firewood?” Putin then noted, “You will have to go to Siberia to buy the firewood there,” as Europeans “do not even have firewood.”

World Nuclear News
1 Dec 2010

www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=28907

Last Friday, I attended a conference for a multinational bank in Oman.

It is an annual event to update the region’s clients about the bank’s latest views on local and global conditions and, of course, to tell us about its latest products.

For the first time, I heard about the Chicago Climate Exchange (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/)

I had thought that “green derivatives” was just myth or bad idea, not something able to be sold. But I was shocked to learn that the volume of trades has reached to one trillion dollars!

It seems we are just creating another speculative industry, which will attract huge funds, the whole thing far removed from basic and essential social investments.

I am not against real green initiatives that reduce the pollution, make use of energy more efficient, offer cleaner/better water or improve the healthy environment that surrounds us. I am against the linkage between those useful things and “climate change”, which just seems to put restrictions and taxes on some industries just to fund something not real.

“Climate Change” is something universal. It will keep changing and is more powerful than any human actions. This is my own personal view.

The joke of the conference was this:

When one of the attendees asked the instructor: “What if the investment is lost, how I can justify that to my manager?”

The answer: “Tell him that your company was supporting the fight against global warming!”

I wonder if that answer would be enough to keep feed me in future, if I will lose my job, or will I blame the weather for my decision!

I wonder how the carbon taxes collected in past and future will be justified to the future generations, when they discover that they were used to fund unnecessary and non-productive expenditures like trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange?

R H, Our Middle East Correspondent

Cuddly carbon keeps koalas & all animals, including us, alive.

CO2 is essential for life. More CO2 will do much good and no harm. If it is allowed to increase at the current rate it will feed the world’s coming peak population with NO more land, seed, cultivation or water.

For a beautifully illustrated article on the many benefits of carbon dioxide for the all life see: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/carbon-dioxide-feeds-the-world.pdf  [PDF, 2.7 MB] [Now updated 2^nd edition.]

By John Robertson 2010
Mount Tamborine, Queensland, Australia

John Robertson was born in Scotland. He was an Open Scholar at Cambridge and has a Masters degree in Engineering. He has spent his life in farming, as a fighter pilot and is now an Australian citizen living at Mount Tamborine. He and his wife are active in many community volunteer organisations.

He says “The note on CO2 is an extension of volunteering and my response to the ridiculous attacks on carbon dioxide by those who should know better. Pollutant indeed!

“This is all my own work (except where otherwise acknowledged in the text) with my own funds. I have no connection whatsoever with fossil fuel or other outside interests.” JR

Further reading:

The Positive Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/10/co2-positive-social-cost/

By Ray Evans and Tom Quirk

The story of how a combination of green missionaries and vested interests have distorted and crippled the Australian electricity industry.

Evans and Quirk conclude:

“By 2020 annual electricity consumption in eastern Australia is estimated from NEMMCO data to be 347 Twh. If renewables are to provide 20 per cent, and no new hydro is to be permitted, electricity production from wind farms (or other renewable sources) must provide 53 TWh. Ignoring for the moment the insuperable problem of unpredictability, and assuming a Load Factor of 25 per cent, this will require a total of 27,000 MW of windmill capacity. Every bit of coastline, every mountain ridge, and much else that can be secured for windmills will have to be pressed into service to meet this target.

“The capital cost of wind power is considered to be $2000 per kW, and so an extra 26,000 MW will cost $52 billion. And back-up will be required. So in addition to new coal plant required to provide an additional 60 TWh, back-up generation of at least 23,400 MW will be required. All of this will have to be paid for by the electricity consumer. These numbers could not appear in any Commonwealth budget; no government could justify that sort of expenditure.

“On top of all this we have system stability problems created by widely dispersed power sources, spread over tens of thousands of square kilometres; whose output can vary dramatically as the wind gusts and dies down; that are connected to the main grid by long, weak transmission lines—a system operator’s nightmare. Such a transmission network, weak and unreliable as it will be, will cost at least $30 billion.”

For the full article see:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/3/the-high-price-of-PC-power

“The Sierra Club is bolstering its long-standing campaign to block the construction of power plants across the country, assembling a team of 100 full-time employees to focus on the issue in 45 states.”

“This is where the environmental movement will make the most progress in the next five years,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/20/AR2010122005874.html

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot (December 08, 2010)

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

More: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore