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

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

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, December 18, 2014

Cheap Oil will destroy Costly Renewables

The benchmark U.S. oil price settled 2 cents higher at $55.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices traded as low as $53.90 a barrel and as high as $57.15 a barrel in the session. 

Brent crude, a global price gauge, settled down 2% at $59.86 a barrel, its lowest settlement since May 19, 2009. (Link)

This is good news for consumers but bad news for Alarmists and Politicians pushing the Falsified AGW hypothesis.

The Independent Weekly laments the fall:
The collapsing oil price that is reshaping the global economy could derail the green energy revolution by making renewable power sources prohibitively bad value, experts have warned.

A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.
However,  cheap energy from coal has not had the same effect of keeping prices down.
“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”
Although the Independent says: "the consequences for ...... the climate could be even more radical," it has been shown that, for this century atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30%, there has been a slight fall in global temperature. 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

21 peer reviewed articles on health and industrial wind turbines

The website   Nieuwerust Noise & Bird Watch
has posted an item headed:

21 peer reviewed articles on health and industrial wind turbines

They start off by informing us that there ARE many peer-reviewed and published articles on the adverse health effects related to industrial scale wind energy projects.

Here are a few teasers:

Bob Thorne, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 262, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412557, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262
The adverse effects on health of persons susceptible to noise from wind farms are examined and a hypothesis, the concept of heightened noise zones (pressure variations), as a marker for cause and effect is advanced. A sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside a residence and above an individual’s threshold of hearing inside the home are identified as markers for serious adverse health effects affecting susceptible individuals.
Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 389, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611417841http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/5/389 
Wind turbine noise is annoying and has been linked to increased levels of psychological distress, stress, difficulty falling asleep and sleep interruption. For these reasons, there is a need for competently designed noise standards to safeguard community health and well- being.

Alec N. Salt and James A.Kaltenbach Infrasound , Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 296, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412555,http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

Wind turbines generate low-frequency sounds that affect the ear. The ear is superficially similar to a microphone, converting mechanical sound waves into electrical signals, but does this by complex physiologic processes. Serious misconceptions about low-frequency sound and the ear have resulted from a failure to consider in detail how the ear works. Although the cells that provide hearing are insensitive to infrasound, other sensory cells in the ear are much more sensitive, which can be demonstrated by electrical recordings. Responses to infrasound reach the brain through pathways that do not involve conscious hearing but instead may produce sensations of fullness, pressure or tinnitus, or have no sensation.
Carl V. Phillips, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 303, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412554, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data.
Just a small sample; but remember there are 21 peer-reviewed papers listed on

H/t John Droz Jr

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Would you buy a moronic questionnaire from Morons?

A moronic website has posted a moronic post:

10 Questions For Climate Change Deniers
Look at their moronic first question: 
Would you buy a falsified AGW hypothesis from this man?

Picture Question: Look at the picture of Lord Monckton above. Would you buy a used car from this man?
The Morons are using an ad-hominem about Lord Monckton's medical condition. I challenge the morons to debate Lord Monckton. After the debate, the Morons would crawl off defeated and shamed.

Their second Moronic question: Why do only 24 out of 13950 peer-reviewed papers dispute man-made climate change?

This is from the 2004 Naomi Oreskes paper.

Friends of Science deconstructed this paper and found that the percentage was the reverse of Oreskes' finding. Only 1.2% of the papers Actually Explicitly Agreed with the IPCC declaration: (LINK) Oreskes' Same Old Crap Fictional Leaflet showed that she didn't even understand that vital-to-life carbon dioxide is colourless.

The third moronic question:
why do billionaires secretly have to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into denialist propaganda?
Why do they used the pejorative and false term "deniers." The REAL deniers are the Alarmists. (LINK) Tom Steyer vainly donated $58 million trying to prop up support for the falsified CAGW hypothesis during US mid-term Elections.

If the morons had done their research, they would have found that the sceptics receive only a trifle compared to the funding pushing the climate hoax. As Jo Nova wrote: (Link)
It takes a lot of money to keep a false idea alive.  This is just another Wall of Money. Yet despite that, skeptics are winning battles, unwinding schemes, shrinking the Green gravy trains, and spreading the word.  It’s amazing what a small group of volunteers and barely funded skeptics can achieve with only their wits and truth on their side.
And again:

Big-Green have more money than Big-Oil but the media are blind to it.

Should we pursue any more of the morons' moronic questions?

Well, here is a really stupid question showing they didn't do any research.
Why are there no Climate Scientists for the denial sceptical side? Name One
Take your pick!

Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.

And the moronic  questions continue. To show how scientific they get, just look at their last bit of stupidity:
  1. Look at yourself in a mirror. Does that look like a person who can grasp scientific concepts? a) Yes, b) No, c) I can’t read – I’ve no idea how I got this far through the post.
Actually it is amazing that the morons could write that far into a post.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

ICSC News Release: UN SHOULD CONCENTRATE on What People Want

Attention: News Editors, Political, Science and Environment Reporters



Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and 

public opinion

Ottawa, Canada, December 13, 2014: Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings
of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,” 
said Tom Harrisexecutive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). 
“The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care, 
jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”
“Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday
asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’," continued Harris.
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James
Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16 
priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of 
human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very 
real problems faced by the world’s poor today.
“During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open
letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries 
signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of
Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and 
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,”
concluded Carter.
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take
Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ’Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops. 
Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’
“Not only is climate science highly uncertain but there has been no statistically significant global warming for 18
years despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” said Dunleavy. “As the 
scientists explained in their 2012 open letter to Mr. Ban, ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have 
caused the extreme weather of the past few years.’”
In his 2014 book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, ICSC science advisory board member and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball summed up the situation well: “Climate change has 
happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of 
climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the 
biggest deception in history.”
“The UN must get out of the climate field entirely,” said Ball. “In particular, their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change have always been biased political instruments and should 
be immediately disbanded. Then the agency should focus only on issues the people of the world deem important.”

The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of 
climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate 
issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC 
encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes 
and impacts of climate change.  
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, 
“carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar 
power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.

For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org,
or contact any of the following ICSC representatives: 

In North America:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Phone: 613-728-9200
In Australia: 
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne
Former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences 
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811
Email:  glrmc42@gmail.com 
Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268
In New Zealand:
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
New Zealand
Phone: +64 9 4863859 - Mobile: +64 274836688

Tragedies under Kyoto 1 will be echoed under proposed Kyoto 2.

John Spooner: Taxing Air
Marcus Priest writing from the Lima COP20 Conference in the The Sydney Morning Herald:
But the Abbott Government is also in the middle of a new controversy at the Lima conference over the way Australia's emissions target will be calculated under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the current global climate agreement, due to expire in 2020 and replaced by any new deal signed in Paris next year. 
With apologies to John Spooner.
Australia is seeking to use favourable rules around land clearing - originally agreed to under Kyoto in 1997 to establish an earlier target - in calculating its promised cut for 2020 under the protocol's second stage. 
If Australia is not allowed to include land use emissions to calculate its target it is estimated that it will increase the national 2020 goal by between 40 to 80 million tonnes of carbon emissions or up to 2.5 per cent. 
Australia is threatening that it will not ratify Kyoto again if it does not get its way on targets, and has won support from major developed nations and also Brazil. (bold added)
In 1998, under the Howard Government, the Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Group issued Current Issues Brief 10 (link) contained inter alia:

Allowance for emission reductions from land use changes was permitted in the base year in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from declining rates of land clearing or forestry can be used to meet target commitments. Similarly, removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by absorption into biological systems can be used. These removals of carbon dioxide, for example the planting of forests, are referred to as 'sinks'. 
Ian Hampton writes of Australia's actions in Lima:
This is a carbon copy of the tactics adopted by the then Howard Government in the lead up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement. Australia's "success" in getting the "Australia Clause" in the Kyoto Protocol led directly to the Howard Government "engineering" the much more restrictive 2003 NSW Native Vegetation Legislation and similar legislation in Queensland.
Why Tony Abbott would pander to the loony lefties who read the SMH and watch "our" ABC is a mystery. Turning his back on the people who voted for him and bowing to  people who will never vote for him seems a suicide move.

SO, how did the Kyoto 1 Land Use Protocol work out for Australian Land holders. Let's look at two examples:
  • Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol;
  • Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol. 

Farmer tried to work with the Land Use Protocol

Cate speaking to ABC radio May 20, 2014, about how carbon farming is a “good business strategy” at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/mount-morris-cate-stuart/5465060 . But the banks, for good reason, thought otherwise.
Cate Stuart among the mulga trees the Stuarts have used to create a
carbon-storage scheme with the help of Australian Carbon Traders.
Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen
 Source: News Corp Australia

Mark and Cate Stuart tried to work within the system and create a carbon sink. The sink was supposed to create income of $400,000 every 3 years. (link)
Cate and Mark Stuart will be evicted from their historic Charleville cattle station, Mount Morris, on Thursday after rural lender Rabobank last year called in the receivers Ferrier Hodgson to ­recoup an outstanding debt of $2.6 million. 
The Stuarts are heartbroken. But the tough outback family, which has run the 20,000ha far-west Queensland spread for the past six years, isn’t going without a fight. A very modern fight. 
They say the bank has failed to recognise their wild and sprawling home is more than just a cattle farm: it is a carbon bank. 
For the past four years, the ­Stuarts have worked with the specialist carbon farming company Australian Carbon Traders to capture and store carbon on 5000ha of their mulga tree ­reserves. 
They planned to earn up to $400,000 every three years in valuable carbon credit payments.
Mt Morris is now for sale - See LINK.  The Stuarts have lost everything.

Cate has been featured before in these pages, during the Convoy of No Confidence: LINK
Cate is now known as "Convoy Cate from Charleville." Listen to Cate on ABC's Counterpoint HERE.

Farmer lost farm due to the Land Use Protocol 

Readers of these pages should be aware of Peter Spencer: Our friend, Joanne Nova, has written a magnificent summary HERE
Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined. 
It is this legislation and the resulting theft of the stored carbon in the resulting trees by the Commonwealth (enabling Australia to meet its Kyoto commitments) that is at the root of Peter Spencer's case against the Commonwealth and NSW. (link)

Read the trial notes in  "Peter Spencer: Court diary"

These are just two stories (from both sides of the boundary fence) of the myriad tragedies caused by Land Use Protocol under the original Kyoto Protocol.

Now, landholders (and all Australians)  should gear up for more tragedies IF the Abbott Government gets acceptance of their new Land Use Protocol.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Freedom and Prosperity Party: Membership Open

Whilst many Australians are under the impression that the Carbon Tax has been laid to rest, we still believe there’s a place in Australian politics for a party focused on fighting and exposing the man-made climate change deceit and associated CO2 regime policies and treaties that threaten our freedom and prosperity.

Freedom and Prosperity Party (formerly the Climate Sceptics Party) are currently inviting new members.

Registration is currently free for 12 months membership

The offer is made to Australian residents on the electoral role.

To apply for party membership please email today, the following words:

I apply for membership of the Freedom and Prosperity Party on the understanding that registration is free for 12 months membership.

Then add your name, date of birth, phone number and address

Please then email to nocarbontax@bigpond.com by return email.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Two Wind Turbine Engineers hug pre-death on Flaming Wind Turbine

The Netherland Times Reported: (link)


wind turbinesA wind turbine caught fire Tuesday afternoon in Ooltgensplaat on Goeree-Overflakkee, costing the lives of two mechanics. Four mechanics were at work in the wind turbine on the Mariadijk, about 80 meters above ground, Tuesday afternoon.

Two mechanics managed to get themselves to safety in time, reported a police spokesperson. Rescuers found the body of a deceased mechanic next to the wind turbine on the ground. 
Because of the height the fire department initially had trouble extinguishing the fire in the engine room. In the evening, a special team of firefighters went up with a large crane, and found the body of the missing man.
Renewables are NOT cheap energy and do not create baseload power.

Lives are NOT renewable.