We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Lord Monckton Foundation Global Warming Prediction Index - April 2014

By popular request, the monthly Lord Monckton Foundation Global Warming Prediction Index, the only regular comparison between climate prediction and measured reality, now presents two graphs.

One graph, compares the 1990 prediction by the United Nation’s climate panel of 0.67 Cº global warming since that year with the observed temperature trend of just half that. The other graph, compares the United Nation’s backdated 2013 prediction of 0.15 Cº warming since 2005 with the observed temperature trend of –0.01 Cº.

“The graph comparing the IPCC's original predictions from 1990 with observed reality is particularly telling. This remarkable 212-month period, enduring from August 1996 to March 2014, represents half of the entire 423-month satellite record since it began in January 1979.” Lord Monckton

“…The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure.”

Chris Dawson
Chief Executive Officer & Director
Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425

PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Captain America and (AGW) Hydra.

Captain America and AGW Hydra. 

by Anthony Cox

I used to collect Marvel comics and Captain America was one of my favourites. He personified the Marvel narrative of the virtues of friendship, loyalty and respect. Captain America’s community was based on mutual support.

The Cap’s primary foe was the Red Skull. Skull wasn’t just a Nazi, he was the über Nazi who had obtained a mystical source of power and justification for wanting to conquer the world. Skull’s community, Hydra, was based on coercion and enslavement.

Marvel has come a long way since the old Jack Kirby and Stan Lee days. In the latest Hollywood blockbuster, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, new technologies and new values confront the Captain. And Hydra, the Captain’s old villain has reinvented itself. The similarity with man-made global warming [AGW] is manifest. AGW used to be cooling and has now reinvented itself as warming.

The old comics use to cost 12 cents; now the Winter Soldier costs $170 million. The money involved in AGW is astounding. So it is not just the themes of Captain America which invoke AGW but also the cost.

In Winter Soldier, Hydra has infiltrated SHEILD, which is the bastion protecting Western democracy and Captain America’s community. Hydra wants to ‘protect’ humanity by forcing humanity to accept enslavement. The Hydra villain, Robert Redford, notes the old attempt by Hydra to enslave humanity was not successful because humanity was not ready. This time Hydra is going to make humanity ready to accept Hydra’s slavery by creating chaos and fear so that humanity will be willing to forgo freedom for security.

Of course the advocates of AGW do not hijack huge gunships and plan to use them on humanity. That would be silly. AGW instead has infiltrated our universities and science bodies, claims a consensus and sows fear and discord by predicting the end of the world unless the world accepts the leadership of AGW as personified by the UN and gives up democracy everywhere. That’s not silly.

Advocates of AGW have really got into the spirit of sowing fear and discord. For instance Professor Stephen Schneider famously said:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest

And the Hydra like Club of Rome really got into Marvel super-villain mode when it said: 
The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Misanthropy rears its head regularly in the AGW narrative. And when The Club of Rome says The real enemy then, is humanity itself it doesn’t take much imagination to hear the Skull or his modern incarnation, Robert Redford in the Winter Soldier saying the same thing as he gleefully kills millions of people. Even though Skull and Redford’s character say they want to protect humanity we know they don’t like humans very much at all.

In the Winter Soldier Captain America wins the day with the help of a few friends against the hordes of Hydra. However, in the movie’s teaser we see Hydra continuing as per its motto if one head is cut off two more will take its place.

In real life it’s proving equally difficult to defeat AGW. Unlike Hydra it’s not so much a case of cutting off heads as the heads never shut up. Take the esteemed Professor Peter Doherty interviewed on the very Hydra like ABC.

The good Professor cannot help himself and says:
I mean, the IPCC is talking about the possibility of a two-to-five-degree rise in global mean temperature by the end of the century. Over the last century, Australia has seen a one-degree rise. Last year was the hottest year on record…but then you think in terms of a two-to-five-degree rise, you're thinking of something very, very dramatic happening very quickly.
Last year wasn’t the hottest on record and the IPCC of course has no credibility at all, or at least after the audit by the InterAcademy Council [IAC] in 2010 should have no credibility. But the good Professor and many others like him continue to reference the IPCC as an undisputed source to base their scaremongering statements on. One senses the AGW fear mongers would like disasters to happen as this shows. That they don’t happen with extreme climate events not increasing must be a great source of disappointment to the AGW supporters. In fact they are so disappointed they regard each climate disaster as a good thing. For instance the UN’s Christiana Figueres saw a silver lining in the recent English floods because they got people talking about AGW again. That talk ceased abruptly when it was revealed the floods were largely due to Green policies.

Still Ms Figueres would make a splendid Hollywood villain. Her stern visage would sustain several subsequent further instalments of Hydra based spectaculars; she even appears to be in some super-villain outfit:

The only problem is while Captain America continues to fight Hydra in Hollywood who is going to fight Ms Figueres and the other AGW super villains in reality?

Food Free Fridays Coming?

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes and The Carbon Sense Coalition. 

15 April 2014
To view a print friendly pdf of this newsletter with all images see:

Food-free Fridays?

Once again, the high priests of the UN/IPCC have forecast world starvation unless we mend our wicked ways.

According to them, unless we curb our use of oil, gas, coal and meat, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soar, the globe will heat up, and food production will plummet.

This is just a rerun of their previous failed forecasts based on academic theories and computer models.

They should have asked practical nurserymen, farmers and meteorologists.

Nurserymen would tell them that if you pump carbon dioxide into a greenhouse the plants grow faster, bigger, more drought-tolerant and more heat-tolerant. Therefore more carbon dioxide will produce more food.

See this Time-Lapse video showing effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth:

Farmers would tell them that plants grow faster in the warmth of spring and summer and slower in winter. Any warming by carbon dioxide would tend to warm the higher latitudes so the snow line will shift, thus creating more arable land. It would also tend to produce warmer nights, thus reducing frost damage to crops and opening more land to frost-sensitive crops.

Meteorologists would tell them that if global temperatures increase, evaporation from the vast oceans must also increase. What goes up with more evaporation must come down as more rain or snow. While some areas may become drier, a warmer world is on average a wetter world, producing more food.

There is also no evidence that extra carbon dioxide and warmth will make weather more erratic – in fact the reverse should occur as the global temperature gradient which drives winds and storms will be reduced with more warming at the poles.

Finally, there is no evidence that their climate scares will occur “much earlier than expected”. With global temperatures flat for 17 years, how can warming occur faster than in their previous failed forecasts?

There is no rational basis for claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will add to world starvation – history and science tell us that it would produce a productive green and bountiful world. It is global cooling we have to fear.

Carbon Sense and the cartoon creator, Steve Hunter, have full rights to this cartoon, and grant permission for anyone to reproduce it in any media as long as the Steve Hunter signature remains on it. For electronic media, the source link should also be displayed.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that foolish climate POLICIES will produce less food. Policies on ethanol, biomass, carbon-credit forestry and the Kyoto bans on regrowth control, either directly consume food, or reduce the land available for food production. Encouraging and protecting trees at the expense of grasslands is threatening the production of low-cost food from marginal grazing lands and water restrictions are driving irrigators out of business. And to top it off, their taxes and regulatory wars on carbon energy will push marginal farmers and fishermen out of production. The world may indeed see hungry years, but carbon dioxide will not be the cause.

Already they advocate “Meat-free Mondays”. Their anti-food anti-carbon policies will soon result in “Food-free Fridays”.

If you would like to read more see:

The Beneficial Effects of Global Warming for the Biosphere:

Blaming mankind for floods:

The Food production lies of the IPCC:

Alarmists admit that they exaggerate damage caused by climate change. It’s OK to lie:

Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought:

Grass, Trees, Climate and Food:


The Twilight of Abundance with the Cold Sun?

If you would like to comment on this article:

Flood Plains are for Floods

Every month or so TV screens are filled with images of desperate people somewhere battling a flood.

The town of Emerald, Queensland January 2011
Credit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8238087/Australian-floods-timeline.html

Naturally “global warming” is usually blamed, but this claim will not hold water because, for 17 years, there has been no global warming. Moreover, nature’s floods have been reshaping the Earth for millions of years. And some past floods were far larger than modern floods, evidenced by the width of many flood plains - seldom are they completely flooded today.

The majority of homes and cities were built on flood plains, and for good reasons - closer to water, with fertile soil, better groundwater, flat country that is easier to build on, near good fishing holes and shady trees, and periodically re-fertilised with silty topsoil. In some countries rivers also provide local washing, latrine and transport services.

We hear alarmist stories about the soaring costs of floods. Records show that most floods are not bigger – it is just that more people are building more costly homes and infrastructure on flood plains. And unlike Australia’s early settlers, too few people put their houses on stilts out of the reach of most floods.

Those who choose to build/live on flood plains will usually pay less for their homes than those who buy a home on the hill with views. But they must also accept the costs that go with it – occasional flooding and expensive flood insurance.

Long term flood problems are increased when government steps in and “helps” those who buy/build on flood-prone land with repair subsidies, public works or insurance caps. This allows risk-takers to escape the real cost of their decisions. Then more people build on flood plains.

Flood diversions and levees may not help – too often they just shift flood water from one piece of land to another. Commonly, they also increase water speed, thus increasing the erosive power of the flood.

But governments must ensure that essential infrastructure is relatively flood-proof – roads, railways, airports and electricity should remain operational during most floods. And strategically placed dams will moderate the extremes of both floods and droughts.

Flood plains are for floods. Those who choose to live there will get flooded.

If you would like to read more see:

Blaming mankind for floods:

Is England’s Bad Weather A Sign Of Climate Change?

Latest Global average temperatures in the lower atmosphere. No warming here folks:

All you ever wanted to know about global temperatures over the ages. Getting things into perspective:

Dr Patrick Michaels lecture tour on Climate Change.

Dr Patrick Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C., and formerly a professor at the University of Virginia. He’s the author of many important books on climate change, including Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media and Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know which he co-authored.

To read his comments on green energy follies see:

To book at one of his lectures see:

No Global Warming for 17 years 8 months

For details and discussions, see:

Believe it or Not

Finally, UK Climate Change Minister agrees that British people should eat less baked beans as their flatulence contributes to global warming:


Prepared by Viv Forbes and Helpers from:
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at

If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to:
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia. 

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Reduce Emissions by Reducing Baked Bean Intake but methane is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas

As reported by the MailOnLine, British Labour peer Lord Simon has suggested:

People should eat fewer baked beans to reduce flatulence which can contribute to global warming. 
Lord Simon said: ‘In a programme some months ago on the BBC it was stated that this country has the largest production of baked beans and the largest consumption of baked beans in the world.’

He asked Lady Verma: ‘Could you say whether this affects the calculation of global warming by the Government as a result of the smelly emission resulting therefrom?’ 
Lady Verma described his question as ‘so different’ but she appeared to suggest that people should think twice about over-indulging in baked beans or any food which causes flatulence.She added: ‘You do actually raise a very important point, which is we do need to moderate our behaviour.'

As there has been (or should that be "bean") no warming for 17 and a half years, does that mean the Brits have reduced their baked bean consumption?

A study last December suggested the total value of baked beans sold in the previous year had fallen by £20.8 million to £339.3 million in the UK.

AHHA! I thought so!

Meanwhile the old "cow fart" myth has raised it's ugly (smelly?) head again. The ignorance of these people.......cows burp......it's not the other end.

However, the Everyday Scientist Tom Sheahen has written a retort (used with permission)

The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas 

By Dr. Tom Sheahen

The above graphs show the percentage of radiation
that gases found in the Earth's atmosphere absorb. 

(Figure from Valley, 1965)

Source: NASA

Q.        I read that methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cattle are a big source of methane emissions. How are they going to regulate that?

            Not just cattle, but dairy cows as well!  That doubles the worry.

            Fortunately, there is really nothing to worry about, scientifically. The main thing to worry about is over-reacting politicians and another layer of unnecessary government regulations.

            To understand methane’s role in the atmosphere, first it’s necessary to understand what absorption means. When light passes through a gas (sunlight through air, for example), some molecules in the gas might absorb a photon of light and jump up to an excited state. Every molecule is capable of absorbing some particular wavelengths of light, and no molecule absorbs all the light that comes along. This holds true across the entire electromagnetic spectrum – microwave, infrared, visible, and ultraviolet.

The process of absorption has been studied in great detail. In a laboratory set-up, a long tube is filled with a particular gas, and then a standard light is set up at one end; at the other end of the tube is a spectrometer, which measures how much light of each wavelength makes it through the tube without being absorbed. (Mirrors are placed so as to bounce the light back and forth several times, making the effective travel path much longer; this improves the precision of the data.) From such measurements, the probability of radiation being captured by a molecule is determined as a function of wavelength; the numerical expression of that is termed the absorption cross-section.

If you carried out such an experiment using ordinary air, you’d wind up with a mixture of results, since air is a mixture of various gases. It’s better to measure one pure gas at a time. After two centuries of careful laboratory measurements, we know which molecules can absorb which wavelengths of light, and how likely they are to do so.

All that data is contained in charts and tables of cross-sections. Formerly that meant a trip to the library, but nowadays it’s routinely downloaded from the internet. Once all the cross-sections are known, they can be put into a computer program and the total absorption by any gas mixture (real or imaginary) can be calculated.

            The many different molecules absorb in different wavelength regions, known as bands. The principal components of air, nitrogen and oxygen, absorb mainly ultraviolet light. Nothing absorbs in the visible wavelength range, but there are several gases that have absorption bands in the infrared region. These are collectively known as the GreenHouse Gases (GHG), because absorbing infrared energy warms up the air – given the name greenhouse effect.

            The above figure shows how six different gases absorb radiation across the infrared range of wavelengths, from 1 to 16 microns (mm). The vertical scale is upside-down: 100% absorption is low, and 0% absorption (i.e., transparency) is high.

It’s important to realize that these are shown on a “per molecule” basis. Because water vapor (bottom bar of the figure) is much more plentiful in the atmosphere than any of the others, H­2O absorbs vastly more energy and is by far the most important greenhouse gas. On any given day, H2O is a percent or two of the atmosphere; we call that humidity.

The second most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which (on a per-molecule basis) is six times as effective an absorber as H2O. However, CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere (400 parts per million), so it’s much less important than water vapor.

            Now it’s necessary to scrutinize the figure very carefully. Looking across the wavelength scale at the bottom, H2O absorbs strongly in the 3-micron region, and again between 5 and 7 microns; then it absorbs to some degree beyond about 12 microns. CO2 has absorption bands centered around 2.5 microns, 4.3 microns, and has a broad band out beyond 13 microns. Consequently, CO2 adds a small contribution to the greenhouse effect. Notice that sometimes CO2 bands overlap with H2O bands, and with vastly more H2O present, CO2 doesn’t matter in those bands.

            Looking at the second graph in the figure, methane (CH4) has narrow absorption bands at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns. CH4 is 20 times more effective an absorber than CO2 – in those bands. However, CH4 is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O.

            Because of that, methane is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas. The high per-molecule absorption cross section of CH4 makes no difference at all in our real atmosphere. (bold added)

Bright pink burp-trapping bovine backpack

            Unfortunately, this numerical reality is overlooked by most people. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, causing needless worry. The tiny increases in methane associated with cows may elicit a few giggles, but it absolutely cannot be the basis for sane regulations or national policy.