If wind farms are so clean and green, why don’t they put them all in National Parks instead of devaluing private property?

They don’t generate reliable electricity anyway, but their noise may drive feral dogs and wild pigs out of their safe havens in the parks.

Viv Forbes, Rosevale, Qld, Australia

By Ken Ring
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=585

This is an age in which some aspects of science have completely reversed. Despite the planet remaining exactly the same, plus the sun, moon, stars, and people, nevertheless what we learned in school appears now to be irrelevant and replaced by concepts empirical physicists like Newton would have had difficulty comprehending. In this new age, new science is driven by funding rather than facts, and ideology rather than ideas. They are interesting times, because the future of science itself may be at stake. If the new trend of politically-directed science is to completely replace the scientific method, which called for rigorous standards of evidence and proof, then it will be entirely up to the politicians of the future to decide what is true or false. What follows is a brief description of some aspects of this new science.
(more…)

I have noticed in the news that after twenty years of slapping a hefty price on carbon dioxide emissions, Norway’s carbon emissions have increased by 15%. Not that it matters, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant anyway.

And China and India don’t even want to discuss carbon dioxide. But when they do they insist that, as it is we who are the carbon dioxide enthusiasts, we should pay.

But here we are, with a credit crisis and politicians panicking about infrastructure, they are tied in knots over how to go about imposing a carbon tax on the population.

The futility of carbon dioxide taxation has been ably and practically demonstrated by Norway. But our lemming like politicians on both sides of the house are as enthusiastic as ever to impose yet another tax on the public.

Why don’t they be honest and just say “We intend to close Australia down.” Rudd wants to close us down in 2010 and Turnbull in 2012 or so. They both deserve to be bushed. (No pun intended).

Then we can select at random some sensible officials out of the phone book, and get on with the job of growing food and mining products for which the world is scrambling to acquire.

Ronald Kitching

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said he was surprised that a group supposedly protecting the environment are so viciously attacking the energy source that has done more to protect the environment than any other.

“Without coal, humans would have stripped every tree from every populated area to provide heating, cooking, building materials, steam power, and charcoal for smelting metals.

“Their silly opposition to coal in Britain means that now one large UK power station (Drax) is converting to burn wood, harvested in North American forests, and shipped to Britain to be burnt. Their selective blindness does not compute the net energy waste involved in this stupidity.

“Does Greenpeace support burning the forests?

“Green policies have also caused such high power prices that poor consumers in Europe’s bitter winter were stripping forests for firewood, even burning old books to keep warm.

“Does Greenpeace support high power prices, wood-poaching and book-burning?

“Green promotion of wind power is defacing the rural environment with networks of roads, power lines and whirling scythes that slaughter millions of bats and raptors all over the world. And causing duplication of generating equipment for the 70% of the time wind turbines do not deliver planned power.

“Does Greenpeace support this environmental destruction and waste of community resources?

“Greenpeace probably also believe that coal-fired power generation causes city smogs. It does not.

“Air pollution is nothing new. King Edward I complained about London pollution in 1306, as did Queen Elizabeth I in 1578, long before the first steam engine operated.

“The Asian smog is not caused by producing electricity in modern power stations with closed boilers, pollution controls and using high-quality washed coal such as exported by Australia to Asia. The “power station pollution” pictured so eagerly in ABC and Greenpeace propaganda is actually steam from the cooling towers.

“The main products of burning coal are water vapour and carbon dioxide – both are essential life supporters. The carbon dioxide produced by burning coal has done more to encourage the growth of plants and the greening of planet Earth than Greenpeace Pirates will ever do.”

Bayswater Power Station at Full Production.
The wispy white vapour is steam, from the cooling towers, as harmless as what comes out of a boiling kettle. The tall stacks are the Exhaust Stacks, emitting mostly invisible harmless natural gases including nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen and argon. They all came from the atmosphere in the first place. Where is the pollution?

“Today’s Asian smogs have many sources – forest fires in Indonesia; open air cremations in India; dust from volcanic eruptions and the Gobi desert; soot, ash and other pollutants from millions of domestic cooking fires and heaters using anything combustible – cow dung, wood, paper, cardboard, plastic or cheap unwashed coal; and soot and unburnt hydro-carbons from millions of vehicles, many with engines needing maintenance and no pollution controls.

“Clean, silent, non-polluting, low-cost electricity (“Clean coal by wire”) into every home is the one thing that could solve most of the Asian air pollution. Greenpeace will be believable when they can demonstrate that they use nothing made by coal energy and they can survive with their pleasant western lifestyle in world bereft of carbon energy from coal, oil and gas.”

PDF version: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/greenpeace-selective-blindness.pdf [PDF: 30KB]

Philip Wood has a degree in Arts Law, experience in international finance, is an ex-merchant banker and now Managing Director of a minerals processing and industrial waste recycling company.

Companies like this are depend heavily on reliable cheap energy, which has led Philip and his team become directly interested in the science, economics and politics of alleged man-made climate change, a hypothesis that increasingly burdens the energy sector. In so doing, Philip has become deeply doubtful of today’s regular doomsday headlines and futile expensive solutions to the non-existent problem of global warming.

For a series of dramatic graphs that cover all aspects of the climate debate, see, copy and spread around this presentation by Philip: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/a-cool-look-at-global-warming.pdf [PDF, 3.7 MB]

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Australia’s proposed carbon tax will favour foreigners at the expense of Australians.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes said that with the Kyoto foolishness collapsing, it was unwise of the Gillard government to impose more costs than our competitors will face.

“Coal produces the cheapest electricity in most areas of the world, especially in the modern clean power stations being constructed in Asia and India. Many of these plants will rely on imports of high quality Australian coal and the cheap power they produce will be supplied to Asian manufacturing and processing plants competing with Australian industry.

“The aim of the carbon tax is to increase the domestic cost of carbon fuels like coal, oil products and gas. This is designed to force Australian industry and consumers to use high cost non-carbon energy options like wind and solar power. In many industries such as transport, green energy is not feasible and the carbon tax will thus merely add to the costs of fuel.

“The Green/ALP carbon tax coalition is thus asking Australian industry and exporters to use expensive energy while we supply cheap energy to their competitors.

“This policy of cheap energy for foreigners but not for locals is a path signposted with promises of paradise, but paved with poverty for those forced to tread there.”

More: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/tax-favours-foreigners.pdf [PDF, 76 KB]

By Alan Caruba

In the “glory years” of the global warming hoax, you had Al Gore picking up Oscars and Nobel Prizes (shared with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and government employees like James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies were picking up wads of cash as awards, speech fees, and grants.

The folks who conjured up the computer models featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports also did quite well for themselves, along with all the others who climbed on the gravy train of global warming grants.

And then in 1998 a cooling cycle set in. It was hard to hide because the weather satellite data was indisputable, but try to hide it they did. Even then, however, there was a handful of outspoken meteorologists and climatologists who were trying hard to get out the message that the perfectly natural warming cycle was over and had been replaced, thanks to—guess what?—a lower output of solar radiation by the SUN.

Still the warmists persisted, infiltrating school systems to frighten children, brainwashing students in colleges, and coercing the public through apocalyptic books, through magazine and newspaper articles, and on television and the Internet.

In 2009, the release of a huge cache of emails between the IPCC global warming perpetrators instantly became known as “Climategate” as the world learned that it was all a scam, a hoax, a fraud based on deliberately falsified computer models, and force fed to the public.

The desperation of the warmists was palpable.

In 2006, Grist, an eco-magazine, called for Nurenberg-style trials for skeptics. By 2007, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had called any doubts about global warming treason. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” Two years later in 2009, Kennedy called coal companies “criminal enterprises”, declaring that their CEO’s “should be in jail…for all of eternity.” In 2008 NASA’s Hansen was calling for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.”

Didn’t like the warmist’s bogus science? A former member of the Clinton administration, Joe Romm, defended a comment on his Climate Progress website that warned that a generation of brain-washed youth would see to it that skeptics would “be strangled in their beds.”

Today, another Clinton appointee, Carol Browner, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator is one of Obama’s “czars” and the unseen specter whispering in the ear of Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator. She is joined by John Holden, an Obama science advisor, and Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu.

If threats of jail and murder couldn’t shut up the skeptics, then Professor Kari Marie Norgaard, speaking at a warmist confab, “Planet Under Pressure”, put forth the notion that any science-based skepticism—based on actual, not fictional data—should be “recognized and treated” as some sort of aberrant behavior.

Doubt global warming? Well, you must be nuts!

Norgaard is a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon. As she put it, “Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected. People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. That habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level—how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”

“Should work”? The Earth—the oceans, the clouds, and its entire eco-system—doesn’t give a rat’s patoot about how warmists and other weather crazies think it “should work.” All that intellectual claptrap adds up to a totalitarian belief that people who disagree with global warming should be jailed or killed.

And in true totalitarian fashion reminiscent of the Stalin era when people simply disappeared from public records and reports, on April 2nd Norgaard’s bio for Whitman College could no longer to be found on the its website. True to the eco-fascist approach, she had become a liability, a non-person for having revealed their plans for humanity.

Regular people who actually do something useful with their lives know that intellectuals like Norgaard hold them in utter contempt, but it is those who profess belief in global warming that should be regarded with grave and serious suspicion.

Those who use global warming, i.e., the assertion that carbon dioxide emissions should be restricted and controlled, are the true enemies of progress, of freedom, and of humanity.

In the twentieth century intellectuals foisted Communism on the world, thus ensuring that millions of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians and others would be killed for their dissent. Intellectuals are always the first to embrace every dictator and to excuse their methods.

The warmists are increasingly desperate as their dreams of global domination are falling apart.

In Europe and here in America all their schemes to replace the real production of electricity with solar panels and wind turbines are being rejected. Their plans for herding populations into cities and onto mass transit meet with resistance. Parents are objecting to their eco-curricula in schools. Al Gore has become a joke.

Consider this, if they were in charge, anyone who voiced dissent from their global warming-climate change lies would be in concentration camps, undergoing “re-education”, being “treated” with mind-altering drugs, or dead.

© Alan Caruba, 2012
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/utter-desperation-of-global-warmists.html

Carbon dioxide is a harmless, colourless, non-toxic, natural gas that is the key link in the carbon cycle of life.

To call it “pollution” and turn the world upside down in a futile attempt to affect the climate, while ignoring REAL pollution, is an obscenity.

Have a look here at real pollution.

http://www.midwayfilm.com/

By Geoff Derrick.

Our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull lives on the southern shore of Sydney Harbour, and is in a favoured position to observe the climate moods and weather of the Sydney area in the 21^st Century.

However, he should be aware that a considerable database exists that scientifically documents the climate history of Sydney Harbour and adjacent beaches, mainly temperature and sea levels, at least from the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. When Captain Philip arrived in 1788 and landed at Sydney Cove, he quickly established a weather recording framework to help him better understand what the climate trends might be in this new colony.

Over a three year period from 1788 to 1791, two officers Bradley and Dawes recorded temperatures in the fledgling colony 6 times a day. A log of this data was found in 1977 in a remote corner of the Library of the Royal Society of London, and the data were analysed and plotted by Gergis, Karoly and Allan in 2009. They compared the First Fleet data with BOM data from the Sydney Observatory for the period 1859 to 2014, using monthly averages for T_maximum and T_minimum. A graph comparing the First Fleet data set 1788-1791 with the BOM data set 1859 to 2014 is shown below, for T_max.

Remarkably, the First Fleet data (red circles), are almost totally coincident with the later BOM record 1859 to 2014 (green dots); the same result is seen also for average minimum temperatures, and so Malcolm could justifiably claim that in the Sydney area there has been no change in trend of maximum and minimum temperatures over 256 years.

Data from the Fort Denison tide gauge in the harbour also shows an almost stable sea level trend for 129 years from 1886 to present day. In addition, a fisherman’s hut built in 1875 along the high water mark at Long Reef, Collaroy has been photographed in 1907, 1936, 1950 and 2014; remarkably, it exists in precisely the same position now as in 1875, and Malcolm could also justifiably claim that in the Sydney northern beaches there has been no documented sea level rise for about 140 years.

Read the whole story on Sydney’s non-alarmist stable harbour and coastline here: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/turnbull-and-sydney-climate.pdf [PDF, 4.4 MB]

Biographical note:

Geoff Derrick is a consultant geologist who believes in the integrity of scientific observation, rather than flawed outputs from computer models. Prepared 29 Nov 2015

By Graham Williamson

According to Australian Climate Commissioners Tim Flannery, Roger Beale, and Gerry Hueston, in their recent report ‘The Critical Decade: International Action on Climate Change’, the reason why Australians are disproportionately to blame for global climate change is because of so called per capita emissions. According to the Climate Commissioners, (21) “the average Australian produces emissions almost five times that of the average Chinese person and 16 times that of the average person from India.”

This was confirmed by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet:

“The fact is that Australia has the highest per capita emissions of all developed countries, about 27 tonnes per person. This compares to a world average of about 6 tonnes per person, and an average of about 14 tonnes per person in other developed countries. Developing countries consistently point to Australia’s high per capita emissions to justify why we should take strong action on climate change.”
(more…)