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

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson

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

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Investigative Journalism


Letter sent to MSM.

Investigative Journalism.

From Nepal's "Himal" October Edition: "Journalists are cynical by nature, and it is perhaps understandable that some in India continue to retain a certain degree of scepticism about climate change – over whether it is truly taking place, being exaggerated or, worse still, whether it is little more than a conspiracy concocted by a handful of vested interests for unclear purposes."

However, it appears the Australian journalists have accepted only one side of the man-made global warming (AGW) debate incorrectly called "consensus." The "consensus" is from scientists on the public purse whose jobs and grants would disappear if the AGW hypothesis was proven to be false.
Senator Fielding asked simple questions of Senator Wong. She and her scientific advisors could not give answers. The political body IPCC which was formed to show that CO2 causes AGW have failed and in recent correspondence say that they rely on the US Environmental Protection Agency naming CO2 a pollutant.
The EPA's Head, Mr Al McGartland, says he is managing the issue on PROBABILITY. Mr McGartland offers no science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant. His case is founded on computer modelling that have been proven to beflawed.
Nepal can recognise the job of journalists. Where are our investigative journalists?

Geoff Brown
Climate Sceptics Party

Friday, September 25, 2009

ABC Bias



ABC
Audience & Consumer Affairs
GPO BOX 9994
SYDNEY 2001


24th September 2009




Dear Sir,

Complaint under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Code of Practice

I am the President of The Climate Sceptics political party and I hereby complain in accordance with the requirements of the ABC Code of Practice and in particular, but not limited to, sections 3.2, 4.4 and 5.3 of the Code about the program on your radio station, the details of which are set out below:
Radio National, AM
NSW
AM with Tony Eastley, report by Sarah Clarke
24th September 2009
8 AM:

Man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming [AGW] is the theory that greenhouse gas (especially carbon dioxide) emissions principally from the burning of fossil fuels is causing dangerous warming of Earth. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory other than the output of unstable and highly speculative computer models. The underlying science of climate is not sufficiently understood to remotely justify the making of highly speculative extrapolations based on computer models of inadequately understood processes. This is simply illustrated by the fact that planetary temperatures have been stable or reducing over the last eight or more years contrary to the projections of these models whilst the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has continued to rise unabated. There exists a large and growing body of scientific evidence which is contrary to this theory. The ABC has not been presenting this contrary evidence and has been making quasi-religious assertions that the science is settled when it is not. It has been only presenting information in favour of AGW without any critical analysis of that information or attempt to balance that information with relevant examples of the contrary evidence.
The information presented in the above program in favour of AGW consisted of the following points:
1. Increasing melting by glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland
2. Increasing temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula
3. Antarctica and Greenland contribution to rising sea levels of 1.4 millimetres per annum
4. Comment by Tony Mohr of the Australian Conservation Foundation saying “this is happening much quicker than previously thought” without a balancing comment.
The evidence which is contrary to the information presented in the above program consists of the following:
1. The overall ice-mass of the Antarctic is increasing:
Davis, C.H., Li, Y. McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M. and Hanna, E. 2005. Snowfall-driven
growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901.
Monaghan, A.J., Bromwich, D.H., Fogt, R.L., Wang, S.-H., Mayeweski, P.A., Dixon,
D.A., Ekaykin, A., Frezzotti, M., Goodwin, I., Isaksson, E., Kaspari, S.D., Morgan, V.I., Oerter, H., Van Ommen, T.D., Van der Veen, C.J., and Wen, J. 2006. Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. Science, 313, 827-831.
Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H., and van Meijgaard, E. 2006.
Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional atmospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2005JD006495
2. The overall extent and thickness of the Antarctic sea-ice is increasing:
Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice
Anthony P. Worby
Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
Cathleen A. Geiger
Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
Matthew J. Paget
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Michael L. Van Woert
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, USA
Stephen F. Ackley
Department of Earth Science and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Tracy L. DeLiberty
Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
From: Worby, A. P., C. A. Geiger, M. J. Paget, M. L. Van Woert, S. F. Ackley, and T. L. DeLiberty (2008), Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C05S92, doi:10.1029/2007JC004254
3. The Antarctic deep sea is getting colder:
http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news256486
4. There is a geological difference between the Western and Eastern Antarctica:
ANTARCTICA: Freeze-Dried Findings Support a Tale of Two Ancient Climates
A surprising cache of ancient plant material adds evidence for divergent climate histories of the East and West Antarctic ice sheets over the past 14 million years
Excerpt: These findings appear to be contradictory at first glance, but in fact they buttress an evolving view among scientists that the two major features of the continent, the western and eastern ice sheets, have experienced vastly different climate histories. Data from the Dry Valleys reveals an East Antarctic Ice Sheet that is high, dry, cold, and stable, at least in its central area. And the ANDRILL cores suggest a more volatile West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is subject to the changing temperatures of the sea in which it wades. "It reaffirms the fragility of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [WAIS] and the stability of the central part of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," says Peter Barrett, a sedimentologist at the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) in New Zealand, who advised the ANDRILL project.
From: Science 30 May 2008: 1152-1154
DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5880.1152
5. Even so the Western Antarctica has experienced an increase in snow cover since 1850:
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
Elizabeth R. Thomas
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Gareth J. Marshall
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Joseph R. McConnell
Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, USA
From: Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.
6. One of the main reasons for the warmer conditions on the Western side is that it is under-pinned by volcanoes:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarcticvolcanoes2.jpg
7. Temperatures over the Antarctica have not been increasing:
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp19.jpg
And the satellite data is confirmed by data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology sites in Antarctica;
http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/soe/display_indicator.cfm?soe_id=1
8. In respect of Greenland the supposition that glacier melt is accelerating is disputed:
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland, Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev, Science Express on 20 October 2005 Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1013 � 1016, DOI: 10.1126/science.1115356
Richard A. Kerr, Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In, Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458
9. The Greenland conditions are also not unusual compared with the first part of the 20thC:
Chylek, P., M. McCabe, M. K. Dubey, and J. Dozier (2007), Remote sensing of Greenland ice sheet using multispectral near-infrared and visible radiances, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S20, doi:10.1029/2007JD008742
10. As to rising sea levels; generally sea levels have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 when increased solar intensity caused a general warming of the Earth, however, that rate of sea level increase is now reducing:
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
In this paper Ablain et al find since 2005 a reduction in the increase of sea level rise of 2 millimetres per annum which exceeds the supposed increase of 1.4 millimetres increase from the supposed melting of Antarctica and Greenland glaciers as reported in the AM programme.
This finding contradicts the ‘official’ version of sea levels in the paper by Rahmstorf [2007] which in turn has been shown to be statistically at error by Australian scientist, Dr David Stockwell:
http://landshape.org/enm/a-semi-empirical-approach-to-sea-level-rise/#more-2618
11. The latest Australian Antarctic study finds no disturbance in the Antarctic ice-pack:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25648336-11949,00.html
12. And finally a recent paper by Australian Professor Cliff Ollier explains why the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are not collapsing: http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/ollier_etc.pdf
By not presenting this contrary evidence the ABC has contravened the following sections of its Code of Practice: Sections: 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3.
Pursuant to Sections: 3.3, 5.4 of the Code of Practice the ABC must make a correction as soon as practicable and preferably within 28 days of the receipt of the complaint.
This complaint is made within 6 weeks of the specified broadcast so all tapes and records of the program should still be extant.

I look forward to your response.


Yours faithfully

Leon Ashby
PO Box 721
Mt Gambier
South Australia. 5290
President, The Climate Sceptics
Ph: 0887235550

Anthony Cox
PO Box
Charlestown
New South Wales. 2290
Secretary, The Climate Sceptics
Phone: 0412474915

Not Evil Just Wrong - Still Wrong

World Premiere Coming to your home if you want!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

It’s Time to Ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme.



1. It’s Time to Ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme.

By Viv Forbes

It is time for Australian politicians to ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme and dismantle the expensive Global Warming Empire they have created.

The scientific case has collapsed and the political coalition has evaporated, but still the major political parties continue to serve vested interests and fish for Green preferences.

The case for action on global warming is essentially this: “Man’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming”. This scare has been disproved in triplicate.

Firstly, both long term and short term temperature records show that CO2 does not control temperature. This destroys the whole basis for the global warming hysteria.

Secondly, recent temperature records show that, despite constantly increasing aerial CO2, world temperature is falling, not rising alarmingly.

See: http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/19/temp-vs-co2/
And: http://carbon-sense.com/2009/08/15/isolated-australian-temperatures/

Thirdly, it is clear that global cooling is a far bigger threat to all life on earth than global warming – there are many benefits of a warmer world with plenty of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The global political support is also collapsing, although few politicians will yet admit it.

It has suffered three major political reverses.

Firstly, the US Senate is not going to pass their Ration-N-Tax Scheme this year, probably not next year, maybe never.

Secondly, there is scant political support for capping carbon dioxide in Eurasia or South of the Equator. There are many countries lined up looking for billions of dollars in carbon credit handouts, but none want to cap or tax their own emissions.

For example, China has announced that it doubts the science and the economics of caps (but it is keen to build heaps of windmills and solar panels for anyone silly enough to buy them).

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/17/climate-rise-fears-china .

India will burn more coal, and will not accept caps, and Russia is only interested in selling carbon credits.

Finally, even in Europe, the citadel of global warming, public support is evaporating.

The British public is “tired, bored and resentful” of the hysteria and cost of the low carbon vision.

See: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=698

And two thirds of French voters oppose their new carbon tax (even though they have a huge nuclear power industry).

Both Australian political parties cite “pressure for certainty from big business” as the main justification for rushing into the Ration-N-Tax Scheme.

The sad fact is that a majority of big businesses look to benefit from the whole new tax-subsidise-and-trade empire that will be created. Banks, commodity traders, lawyers, accountants, regulators, academics, solar, wind and gas entrepreneurs, and the carbon sequestration lobby are all planning to profit from trading hot air certificates. They also see opportunities to profit from increasing energy prices or they need special subsidies and tax breaks to justify some foolish gambles they have taken in the alternate energy business.

And the hidden agenda of both major political parties is to gain or retain power by courting green preferences.

These are all grubby reasons for saddling ordinary Australians with a scheme that will increase the costs for everything, particularly electricity, food and travel, as well as destroying real jobs and slashing the value of their superannuation funds.


2. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a Pollutant.

The alarmists first tried to scare us with “Global Warming”. But the climate would not co-operate and earth started to cool. So they changed the scare headline to “Climate Change”. This allowed every flood, drought, storm and heat wave to be pointed to as evidence (but the media helpfully looks the other way when yet another of Al Gore’s global warming rallies gets hit by a snow storm).

But opinion polls are now showing that people are sick of hearing about “Climate Change” and are certainly not going to pay a carbon tax on that account. So a new rally cry was needed. The spin doctors and their astrologers were consulted and they advised “Most people are concerned about POLLUTION”.

So “Pollution” is the new hot button that will be pushed relentlessly in the days ahead. (If “Pollution” starts to falter, “Energy” is their next hot button – “clean energy”, “energy conservation” or “energy independence” – who can oppose such worthy aims?)

Penny Wong was ahead of the pack in deviously labelling her version of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme as “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

There is not one iota of truth in this title. It is not about “carbon”, it is not about “pollution” and it is unlikely to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere contains the four gases on which all life depends: nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the rarest, and the most crucial – “Life is a Carbon Equation”. Current levels of CO2 are lower than in most of earth’s past eras, and not far above the crucial 200 ppm level at which most plant growth ceases and most animal life starves.

No sensible person could reasonably describe any of the atmospheric gases as a pollutant or a poison. Anything on earth can be dangerous in excess, or can be used unsafely – try living in pure nitrogen, pure oxygen, pure water or pure carbon dioxide and you will not survive.

William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University made a submission to the US Senate on “Climate Change” in February 2009. Part of his submission covered the role of carbon dioxide in the environment. It is a comprehensive and very readable submission. Here is his perspective on carbon dioxide:



Carbon Dioxide is not a Pollutant

“I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.”

“CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning.

“Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”

Professor William Happer,
Princeton University,
25 February 2009




Professor Happer also notes that part of the reason for the green revolution of the twentieth century was increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and the increased warmth that caused the degassing of CO2 from the oceans). In the unlikely event that humans were able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, the results would be grim – reduced food production.

To read the full submission see:
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/21/happer-testimony/




3. Burning Fossil Fuels will not affect the climate


A numerate Canadian Geophysicist, Norm Kalmanovitch, has done a bit of figuring on the carbon dioxide produced by human use of carbon fuels, largely using IPCC’s own figures. The calculations below are based on Norm’s work:

The table below from the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report shows the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the 1990’s to be 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.





Throughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This figure was calculated using the statistics on fossil fuel consumption from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2009.

Therefore only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tonnes of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 can be from fossil fuels.

500/11,700 = 0.0427 or 4.27%.

This means that 95.73% of the increase in carbon dioxide came from natural sources.

The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured regularly in Hawaii. These measurements show that over that period, the increase in atmospheric CO2 was about 2.0 ppmv/year (parts per million by volume).

Since 95.73% of this is due to naturally sourced CO2, nature must be responsible for 95.73% of 2.0 ppmv/year or 1.9 ppmv/year, leaving 0.1 ppm of the increase to burning fossil fuels.

Therefore, even if we managed to stop all increases in the use of carbon fuels,
we will merely eliminate this 0.1 ppmv/year increase and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will still increase by 1.9 ppmv/year.

Thus if the IPCC models are correct and increases in CO2 concentration cause increases in global temperatures, the Earth will continue to warm at catastrophic rates regardless of what we do to reduce emissions.

But if we do put a fixed cap on emissions from carbon fuels, it is far more likely that many of the world’s population will freeze and starve in the dark.

This is Norm’s conclusion:



Reality Check for the IPCC – Warming is not caused by humans.

“First of all, these calculations demonstrate that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not the primary source for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact fossil fuel CO2 emissions account for less than 5% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

“Second and most importantly, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of source, is not causing an increase in global temperature as demonstrated by the past eight years of cooling with steadily increasing CO2 concentration and the ever increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

“This flies in the face of IPCC statements that the Earth is warming and this warming is caused by humans.”


Norm Kalmanovitch,
September 2009



4. Green Groups set up a war room.

US warmists, determined to force Obama’s Ration-N-Tax Scheme through a hostile Senate, have set up a “climate war room funded by more than 60 labor, business, faith, agriculture and environmental groups”. This control room will funnel ad money and slogans to grass roots operations in over 20 states. Unless we spark up, the regiments in green are going to snuff out the lights for all of us.






5. The Great Copenhagen Liar’s Conference.

In December this year, thousands of employees of the Climate Change Industry will burn tonnes of carbon fuel on travel and convert tonnes of champagne, canapés and caviar to carbon dioxide, all in the name of the lie that the earth is in a global warming crisis.

An American observer, Alan Caruba, pours a little truth with a touch of humour and a pinch of vitriol onto this conference, and concludes:

“Like the witches in Macbeth, for years the IPCC
has been stirring a cauldron of lies about global warming
and the world’s media, intoxicated by the fumes rising from the pot, have never ceased from telling us that the Earth is warming
when it is not.”
“The Copenhagen Conference is, like global warming, a hoax”

To read his full article see: http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/21/copenhagen-liars/


Viv Forbes
info@carbon-sense.com
MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
0754 640 533

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

UK climate scepticism more common


A report from BBC News By Sudeep Chand Science reporter:


The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a survey. Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated". Four in 10 believe that many leading experts still question the evidence. One in five are "hard-line sceptics".

What about here in Australia?
Senator Fielding asked simple questions of the two Pennys - Wong and Sackett - and they failed to give satisfactory replies. Today's Australian has a poll showing that now 22% (and rising) are against the ETS.

And in the US?
One of our members wrote to the IPCC: "I emailed the IPCC asking for the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant. I have now received their reply that states that they can find no science in their four reports. They go on to say that the USA's EPA Clean Air Act has decreed that CO2 is a pollutant.

I also have had a reply from Mr Al McGartland of the USA's EPA but he relies on concensus, not on scientific proof."


This is the EPA that suppressed one of their top scientists - Alan Carlin's dissenting report. This is the EPA that the US Chamber of Commerce is saying have an enquiry re the science or we'll go to court.

So, the IPCC has no proof, the EPA relies on a (Non)"consensus," our Pennys can't answers questions about it. No wonder there is scepticism or is it being realistic.

When will the Main Stream Media start to do their job? When will they do some investigative journalism?

Monday, September 21, 2009

Antarctica – warming, ice melting – not yet


From Anthony Watts:

Earlier this year we had the big news that even though everything else says otherwise, the statistical wizards of Steig et al (with a cameo appearance by stat-stickster Michael Mann) managed to make Antarctica show a warming trend.

Here’s the headline from the 20th Jan 09 Sydney Morning Herald:

Sell the beach house: Antarctica is Melting

Another Bad "Peer-reviewed" paper from the UN's IPCC.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Penny Sackett Media Release

Media Release.



In the Movie “A Few Good Men,” in response to Lt. Daniel Kaffee’s remark: “I want the truth!” Col. Jessep shouted: “You can’t handle the truth!”

Recently on Sydney Radio 2UE, Australia’s Chief Scientist, in response to a question about global warming scepticism, made a statement to the order of “I have never seen a peer-reviewed paper that supports the anti AGW position.” This was after attending a meeting with Steve Fielding where peer-reviewed evidence was presented.

Also at that meeting, Senator Fielding presented the Chief Scientist with the hefty hard copy of the NIPCC report, which is a compendium of the relevant climate science that “demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

It also contains details of the Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) which has been signed by more than 31,000 US scientists refuting the CO2 hypothesis. How much more peer-review does she need?



A subsequent response by Senator Fielding’s Science Advisors contained more than 60 peer-reviewed papers. Surely, with due diligence, the Chief Scientist would have read this response, wouldn’t she?

This was issued 5 days before her statement on 2UE.



Geoffrey Brown

Treasurer

The Climate Sceptics Party

Ourimbah 2258





For supporting documentation see http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/ and see the eight September posts beginning Penny Sackett….

Climate Cools for Global Warming Party.

From Viv Forbes' Carbon Sense: CS 90913, Sept 09


Climate Cools for Global Warming Party.

For years we have watched in wonder and disbelief as this global warming party got into full swing:

First came the party-planning committees from among the old reds and greens in Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra and their various Fabian friends.

Then they created the party bureaucracy with its own impressively named exclusive club, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Then they extracted the money from parent governments for the recruitment of academics to produce the supporting literature.

Then came the promotion group tours to various hardship locations like Rio, Kyoto, Bali, Geneva and Paris.

Finally we are approaching the big party itself, planned for Copenhagen in December 2009 with all parent governments invited. The highlight planned for the December party is the birth of “Son of Kyoto”, to be named “Copenhagen”. The plan is to get all parent governments so excited that they will participate in a mass adoption ceremony, pledging eternal parental support for “Copenhagen”.

Our job is to make sure Australia (and USA and NZ) sign nothing in December so that “Copenhagen” does not sponge on us but stays with his parents in Old Europe where he was conceived.

Thankfully there are signs that, at last, the public is getting sick of supporting this never ending party:

In Britain, a recent poll found (Daily Express, 11 Sept 09):
50% believe the media is too alarmist.
29% believe evidence linking human activity and global warming has been exaggerated (this figure has doubled since 2003).
20% totally reject the idea that human activity impacts global warming and believe that temperature is controlled by natural processes.

In France, a recent poll showed that 66% opposed Sarkozy’s carbon tax.


Party poopers are even appearing in the IPCC alarmist camp:


IPCC Author Concedes Cooling

“Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

“Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

“..... Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?”

Lorne Gunter in the National Post,
reported in CCNet 140/2009 – 12 September 2009

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/11/lorne-gunter-global-warming-takes-a-break.aspx



There are also many signs that we are at or past the peak of the most recent phase of natural global warming, with an increasing number of scientists now saying that the sun, via oceans and clouds, controls earth’s temperatures.

See also a new news forum that will focus on Climate Realism at:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/09/new-data-pours-more-cold-water-on-global-warming-believers.html

We must keep the pressure on all politicians to reject or defer the deceptively labelled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being pushed by the Rudd government – it is just another discredited Ration-N-Tax Scheme.

The Media release below highlights one more perverse consequence of the scheme. Please spread it around.

Remember the Pledge: “The RAT Scheme must be rejected” (in Australia, USA and NZ).

Penny Sackett Chief Scientist -Bill Kininmonth's Observations

On the Penny Wong/ Steve Fielding Meeting:

Bill Kininmonth wrote:

1 July 09

I am firmly of the view that Senator Fielding asked the correct question. It was simple and direct and invited a simple and direct response. Much like the little girl who asked “Why is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?”.

The point is that anybody with any understanding of climate history knows that a decade is a very short record and essentially meaningless for interpretation of long term trends. We recognise that the climate system includes two interacting fluids, the oceans and the atmosphere, and interactions between the fluids gives rise to variations on a range of timescales.

The AGW crowd however have made their own bed when in the 2001 IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers they claimed that, based on computer models, there is only limited internal variability in the climate system. Remember the infamous ‘hockey stick’? The logical consequence of that statement is that any variations must be a consequence of radiation forcing and the warming of the previous two decades was due to CO2. This logic continued into the AR4 and the claim that most of the warming of the previous half century was related to anthropogenic causes.

The public expect, based on the IPCC propaganda, that if CO2 concentration is continuing to increase then global temperature should also continue to increase. The reality is that, based on the IPCC’s favourite reference record, temperatures have continued to be cooler than 1998. Senator Fielding, who represents a constituency, is entitled ask on behalf of the public why temperatures are not going up. There might have been a simple radiation forcing related answer, such as the solar irradiance has declined, aerosols concentrations have varied, or some other seemingly plausible mechanism.

The response has been very interesting and revealing.

Professor Nicholls of Monash University wrote a letter in The Australian newspaper to the effect that temperatures are still rising; in the decade since 1998 (1999-2008) temperatures have beco argued that solar irradiance variations since the Maunder Minimum could not explain the warming since the Little Ice Age, therefore a drop in irradiance was not a plausible excuse as the counter to CO2 increase. They also did not use the aerosol argument because IPCC have already admitted to a low level of understanding (and uncertain quantification) of the overall radiation effects of aerosols.

Minister Wong’s advisers have come up with a novel response: there is still an underlying warming trend because long-term the climate is forced by ocean heat; measurements of ocean heat content since 1960 identify a steady increase, even over recent years. The oceans contain more than 85 percent of the climate system heat and the implication is that this added heat will reappear eventually and warm the atmosphere. There are three contradictions in this advocacy.
1. The admission of internal variability severely weakens the previous storyline of only limited internal variability and that previous warming was due to CO2. Why was the previous warming not due to internal variability rather than CO2?
2. The temperature gradient in the ocean surface layer is such that the warmest water is at the surface and temperature decreases with depth. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat will flow down the gradient from the surface to the deeper cooler layers. It is against the Second Law for the heat, at some later stage, to flow back up the gradient! The AGW advocates need to explain the processes whereby the heat will reappear and warm the atmosphere, because the processes are not obvious.
3. An increase in ocean heat content in the upper 700 m of the ocean of 15x10^22 joules since 1960 would seem to be of large magnitude. However, when divided by the mass of the upper 700 m and the specific heat of water we find that the warming is only 0.14C since 1960, or about 0.003C/year. The available instruments (expendable bathythermographs - XBT - deployed from merchant ships since 1960, and Argos buoys deployed since 2003) and the ocean coverage (merchant shipping lanes for the XBT) do not provide such precision of assessment. The claimed ocean surface layer warming is an illusion arising out of a delusion.

The upshot of Senator Fielding’s seemingly simple question is that the AGW advocates have not been able to give a simple and plausible response (that is, that the lack of warming is just part of the internal variability of the climate system) without tearing down a false edifice that has been constructed over three decades of carefully constructed seemingly plausible science. Unless the AGW advocates come up with a response to the Senator’s question that is soundly based in science then we must conclude that the AGW scare is a myth based on naked propaganda.

William Kininmonth

Penny Sackett and Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth comments on Minister Wong’s Reply to Senator Fielding’s Three Questions on Climate Change – Due Diligence1
Contributors2

(From the pdf carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf)

Due Diligence would require the Chief Scientist to read this report. Did she?

Extract:
We draw the following general conclusions:
• At the moment the planet is no longer warming; only time will tell whether the stasis and minor cooling trend will deepen significantly or will instead be succeeded by resumed warming. Both possibilities are plausible, based upon the well known pattern of natural multi‐decadal climate cycles.
• No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous global warming on top of natural, cyclic trends.
• It is unwise for government environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice and especially so when that monopoly is represented by an international political (not scientific) agency, viz. IPCC.
• Other authoritative, independent audits have recently reached similar conclusions to ours (Idso & Singer, 2009). As Carlin has recently concluded (2009; EPA internal document):
“As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data”.
• Accordingly Parliament should defer consideration of the current CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate.
The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous
global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where
competent scientific witnesses are cross‐examined under oath and under the strictest rules of evidence.
(20 peer-reviewed papers followed)

At the end of the pdf there 6 pages of peer-reviewed reference papers.

Penny Sackett and the NIPCC

During the course of the Fielding/Wong/Sackett interviews, Senator Fielding handed Ms Sackett a copy of the NIPCC report.

The NIPCC

Near the end of the meeting Senator Fielding presented Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist with the hefty hard copy of the NIPCC, which is a compendium of the relevant climate science that “demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.”

It is similar in length and complexity to the IPCC Assessment Report 4, but unlike the IPCC report it is easy to read—presumably because it is intended to be understood rather than to intimidate. Presumably Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist cannot now say they weren’t informed of the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of global warming.

Due diligence would demand that she read this report. Did she?
After Senator Fielding presented the NIPCC report, David said "Presumably Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist cannot now say they weren’t informed of the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of global warming."

This report has peer-reviewed anti alarmist papers. Did Ms Sackett look at the NIPCC report; if she did, did she miss the peer-reviewed links? Did she miss the mention of the Petition Project?

In case she did, it has been signed by more than 30,000 scientists.

Part of the Petition says:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

Penny Sackett and the Correspondence

My e-mail to the Chief Scientist dated 17/8/09

(Similar –posted on radio 2UE link e-mail.)

Dear Professor Sackett,

I have sent the following e-mail to 2UE after your interview yesterday afternoon:

On Wilton and Robertson's show on Sunday afternoon(16/8),  Australia's Chief Scientist Prof. Penny Sackett said that she did not know about any "peer-reviewed" paper that was against the hypothesis of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming(AGW).

As a committee member of the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party (http://www.climatesceptics.com.au) I found this remark to be either duplicitous or showing a great lack of research from the Chief Scientist of our great nation.

My e-mail contained the following references to peer-reviewed anti AGW papers:

I asked our party's Secretary, who holds dual qualifications in Law and Science to give me a list of peer-reviewed papers.

Here is his reply.

Hi Geoff,

here are 2 sources;

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

then there is this site;

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
then there is the reference list for the petition;
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5985

and don't forget the recent McLean, Carter and de Freitas paper;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

And my paper with Dr Stockwell;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
Not to mention numerous papers by Professor Stewart Franks;

Can you really say, Professor Sackett,  that you were not aware of any of these papers?

Yours sincerely

Geoff Brown

=======================================================


My e-mail attracted a generic reply from the Department but nothing from either 2UE or the Chief Scientist:-

I then sent the following by surface mail to 2UE Management with a copy to the Chief Scientist:

The CLIMATE SCEPTICS PARTY
Geoff Brown
Treasurer
(address Supplied)
Ourimbah NSW 2258
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au
Phone No Supplied


19 August, 2009


The Management,
2UE
170 Pacific Highway,
Greenwich NSW 2065


Cc -Office of the Chief Scientist
c/- Science and Research Division
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
GPO Box 9839 CANBERRA ACT 2601


Cc Mr Leon Ashby; Mr Anthony Cox; Climate Sceptics Party.


Dear People

Re Broadcast: Murray Wilton and Clive Robertson Interview with Prof. Sackett 16 August 2009.

During the course of this interview, the Chief Scientist made a dubious statement.

 I have e-mailed Mr Wilton twice. The first time requesting a transcript of the interview and the second time with many links pointing to the error made by the Chief Scientist.

I also sent the same email to the Chief Scientist.

As Spam filters often erase e-mails with many links, I am attaching hard copy of the e-mail.

Could you please keep the transcript and forward a copy.

With thanks in advance

Geoff Brown
================================================================

I received nothing from the Chief Scientist but the following reply dated 21/8/09 from 2UE’s General Manager Tim McDermott:-
Dear Mr Brown,
Thank you for your letter dated 19 August 2009. 2UE always appreciates feedback from listeners.
When I listened to the referenced interview, I did not hear anything that concerned me. Even though you indicated that you “find it difficult to believe that Ms Hackett was not aware of certain information” (Interestingly, Mr McDermott’s quotes (“ “) but not my words!) that does not necessarily mean that her acknowledgement was inaccurate. In this instance, I am afraid I cannot agree with your concerns.

He then went on to say that they were not obliged to provide transcripts of broadcasts.

If they thought there was nothing wrong (and there was nothing wrong from their side), why not show goodwill by providing the transcript?

===========================================
Snail mail sent 19/9/09 to 2UE's Mr Mc Dermott and Chief Scientist Prof Penny Sackett;

Geoff Brown
Address as supplied



19 September, 2009



Mr Tim McDermott
General Manager 2UE
PO Box 954
St Leonards
NSW 1590


Cc The Chief Scientist



Dear Mr McDermott

Thank you for your letter dated 21 August 2009.

Attached please find a Media release regarding this matter..

Perhaps you would like to share the attached Media Release with your newsroom.


Yours sincerely


Geoff Brown





From: inquiry@chiefscientist.gov.au
Subject: Message from Office of the Chief Scientist [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: 17 August 2009 5:58:20 PM
To: geoff@dalmatian.com.au

Thank you for your recent correspondence to Professor Penny D Sackett, Chief Scientist for Australia. Your e-mail has been received. This is an automatic response.

To find out more about the Chief Scientist, you can visit Professor Sackett's official website at www.chiefscientist.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Chief Scientist
02 6276 1727
chief.scientist@chiefscientist.gov.au

-------------------
Prior to this interview, Prof. Sackett had attended a meeting between Senators Penny Wong and Steve Fielding (link) during which she was given the hefty volume NIPCC report which contained three pages of links to peer-reviewed papers. Did she, as her job would have warranted, look at this report and the linked peer-reviewed papers?

If so, she lied during the 2UE interview?

If not, she was derelict in her duties.

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (3)

Dr David Evans on the Wong/Fielding/Sackett Meeting

In Part:

The Discussion

I wish someone had been counting interruptions: I am certain that we were interrupted many, many more times than we interrupted. Often you could do more than acknowledge the last point when they interrupted you just as you started to make your own point. For much of the meeting we could hardly get a word in edgeways. Some terrible nonsense got by unchallenged.

All the speakers on the alarmist side frequently rephrased our questions. Often the rephrasing changed the meaning, and often it set up a straw man. It was as if they had to map the question to the nearest Grist talking point. I’m not sure how much of the rephrasing was a way of answering a question they would prefer to answer, and how much was because they genuinely did not understand what point we were making, but there was certainly at least some of both types.

It’s as if they had never before encountered real live competent skeptics or their arguments. Actually, there is a technical reason for this: they probably hadn’t. Only alarmists work in alarmist organizations; they only hire like-minded people. Skeptics who know what they are talking about are booted off alarmist websites (the good arguments are nearly all on the skeptic websites). Like the mainstream media, alarmists suppress and avoid skeptic thought at all cost. This has left alarmists generally very ill informed about either the skeptic arguments or the caliber and numbers of skeptics. It is easy for alarmists never to encounter competent skeptics, and to believe their own political line that the skeptics are just a few misinformed cranks in the pay of big oil.

We pointed out that they hadn’t actually presented any evidence that carbon was the main cause of global warming. No response. Clearly they thought they had, but all they presented was evidence that warming occurred and some models results. Models are theory, not evidence. So: warming, but no evidence that carbon done it. The attempt to frame carbon is a classic stitch up, based mainly on the IPCC’s refusal to consider other suspects.

We pointed out that the models were wrong because they predict a hotspot and there was no hotspot. The amount of warming is equal to the “no-feedback warming” (due to the forcings, which we agreed they had about right for CO2) multiplied by the “feedback factor”. The models assume that the feedback is predominately due to water vapor, and that the feedback factor is about 2.5 – 3. The weakest spot in the IPCC calculations is the effect of feedbacks. This is where they get it seriously wrong, resorting to hand waving and assumptions instead of empirically-validated physics. Naturally they instead draw your attention to the forcing calculations, which are solid.

We showed them the diagram of the model predictions versus the radiosonde observations in my No Evidence paper (page 7). (Warning: horn tooting. That document explains why, despite media impressions, there is no actual evidence that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming. I recommend at least the introduction.) But if there is no hotspot then there is no water vapor feedback, in which case the feedback factor must be less than 1.2, and so the climate models exaggerate predicted temperature rises by at least a factor of two. All IPCC models and calculations of temperature rises rely on a large feedback factor, but the missing hotspot is empirical evidence that it is in fact small.

I thought it appeared from their faces they this was news to them, or at least an unusual argument. Their response was interesting: they replied simply that they had not used models in their arguments at the meeting. There was a moment’s awkward silence, then they moved on. You see, the lecture handout had concluded with the statement “the mid-range amount predicted from the human-driven change in radiative forcing at equilibrium is 1.3 C”, which is a model result. And the lecture had included climate model hindcasts of the last century’s air temperatures with and without the CO2 forcings, and this had been presented to us as evidence. And they relied on model forecasts plenty in the discussion that followed. So if the models are wrong, their conclusions are wrong too.

So why are they not defending the models? Or did they just not want to answer that particular question, and we were bamboozled out of pursuing it? (If so, did the Senators notice the glaring problem?) Perhaps they were being tricky—you can basically do any temperature prediction by the models with a short calculation based on a system diagram with feedbacks. Takes two minutes with a calculator, you don’t actually need to run the models. Perhaps they meant that the quoted results were “calculated by hand”, not “using models”? Surely not? Anyway, we didn’t explore that topic further. I thought it brazen, but crying “rubbish” would have seemed out of keeping with the tone of the meeting.

The other tactic of note was their reliance on ocean temperatures and the deemphasizing of air temperatures. They based the whole empirical part of their case on their claim that ocean temperatures are rising. However this is not a credible claim. We did not dispute it much, because it is a matter of measurement and data and it didn’t seem to me that this meeting should be exploring those narrow technical issues. At one stage William Kininmonth, 45 years a climatologist and head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, explained the physics of how this was not credible, but they didn’t seem to notice.

Ocean temperatures have only been measured in any detail or to any depth for five years, by the Argo buoys. And as that article says, “Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant””. The Argo buoys have been recalibrated, and for a while they showed a slight warming trend. The latest result seems to be slight cooling: see the graphs on this Argo site.

The ocean temperature data is sufficient to prove that the IPCC are wrong about the climate (the rise would have to be over a certain amount to confirm the IPCC case). We did not bring this up at the meeting, though we had discussed the Argo ocean temperatures just before the meeting. There is a larger problem: alarmists have all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict the IPCC climate theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the IPCC theory. It has happened several times now—but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time.

The only other unusual issue was the discussion about Figure 3A in Senator Fielding’s questions. This graph, by Syun Akasofu, shows all the observed global air temperatures, which go back to about 1880. It shows a rising temperature trend as the Earth comes out of the little ice age of the 1600s and 1700s, with alternating warming and cooling periods of about 30 years around the trend. It is discussed here. Human emissions of CO2 were only significant after 1940 (Figures 2 and 3), but the temperature rise had been rising fairly steadily since 1750 or at least 1880—which seemed to interest Senator Wong.

They asked how the straight trend line was drawn; we replied it had been done with a ruler, and that this was simply empirical evidence. The Department’s science adviser replied that they had much more sophisticated methods of drawing trend lines. We were all so impressed!

The meeting finished at 5:26. For political meetings such as this, a meeting of an hour and a half is considered long. I am thankful they gave us a hearing at all, though in the larger scheme of things they should of course be talking to us regularly. (Remember, a trial without a defense is a sham, business without competition is a monopoly, science without debate is propaganda, and government without an opposition is usually a disaster. Who is paid to audit the IPCC? No one, it’s just a few unpaid bloggers.)

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (2)

Bill Kinimonth on the Fielding/Wong/Sackett Meeting:

1 July 09

I am firmly of the view that Senator Fielding asked the correct question. It was simple and direct and invited a simple and direct response. Much like the little girl who asked “Why is the Emperor not wearing any clothes?”.

The point is that anybody with any understanding of climate history knows that a decade is a very short record and essentially meaningless for interpretation of long term trends. We recognise that the climate system includes two interacting fluids, the oceans and the atmosphere, and interactions between the fluids gives rise to variations on a range of timescales.

The AGW crowd however have made their own bed when in the 2001 IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers they claimed that, based on computer models, there is only limited internal variability in the climate system. Remember the infamous ‘hockey stick’? The logical consequence of that statement is that any variations must be a consequence of radiation forcing and the warming of the previous two decades was due to CO2. This logic continued into the AR4 and the claim that most of the warming of the previous half century was related to anthropogenic causes.

The public expect, based on the IPCC propaganda, that if CO2 concentration is continuing to increase then global temperature should also continue to increase. The reality is that, based on the IPCC’s favourite reference record, temperatures have continued to be cooler than 1998. Senator Fielding, who represents a constituency, is entitled ask on behalf of the public why temperatures are not going up. There might have been a simple radiation forcing related answer, such as the solar irradiance has declined, aerosols concentrations have varied, or some other seemingly plausible mechanism.

The response has been very interesting and revealing.

Professor Nicholls of Monash University wrote a letter in The Australian newspaper to the effect that temperatures are still rising; in the decade since 1998 (1999-2008) temperatures have beco argued that solar irradiance variations since the Maunder Minimum could not explain the warming since the Little Ice Age, therefore a drop in irradiance was not a plausible excuse as the counter to CO2 increase. They also did not use the aerosol argument because IPCC have already admitted to a low level of understanding (and uncertain quantification) of the overall radiation effects of aerosols.

Minister Wong’s advisers have come up with a novel response: there is still an underlying warming trend because long-term the climate is forced by ocean heat; measurements of ocean heat content since 1960 identify a steady increase, even over recent years. The oceans contain more than 85 percent of the climate system heat and the implication is that this added heat will reappear eventually and warm the atmosphere. There are three contradictions in this advocacy.
1. The admission of internal variability severely weakens the previous storyline of only limited internal variability and that previous warming was due to CO2. Why was the previous warming not due to internal variability rather than CO2?
2. The temperature gradient in the ocean surface layer is such that the warmest water is at the surface and temperature decreases with depth. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics heat will flow down the gradient from the surface to the deeper cooler layers. It is against the Second Law for the heat, at some later stage, to flow back up the gradient! The AGW advocates need to explain the processes whereby the heat will reappear and warm the atmosphere, because the processes are not obvious.
3. An increase in ocean heat content in the upper 700 m of the ocean of 15x10^22 joules since 1960 would seem to be of large magnitude. However, when divided by the mass of the upper 700 m and the specific heat of water we find that the warming is only 0.14C since 1960, or about 0.003C/year. The available instruments (expendable bathythermographs - XBT - deployed from merchant ships since 1960, and Argos buoys deployed since 2003) and the ocean coverage (merchant shipping lanes for the XBT) do not provide such precision of assessment. The claimed ocean surface layer warming is an illusion arising out of a delusion.

The upshot of Senator Fielding’s seemingly simple question is that the AGW advocates have not been able to give a simple and plausible response (that is, that the lack of warming is just part of the internal variability of the climate system) without tearing down a false edifice that has been constructed over three decades of carefully constructed seemingly plausible science. Unless the AGW advocates come up with a response to the Senator’s question that is soundly based in science then we must conclude that the AGW scare is a myth based on naked propaganda.

William Kininmonth

Penny Sackett and the Evidence (1)

Wong's silent treatment
Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth | June 19, 2009
Article from: The Australian
STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.
Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: "What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.
"In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science."
Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: "A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist." Think about that for a moment with respect to our government's climate policy.
On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.
Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.
After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.
The questions posed were:
* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?
As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister's advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.
We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.
Que? What is it about "carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased" that the minister's science advisers don't understand?
The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.
And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister's advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.
These are not adequate responses.
It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change's green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society's energy usage that will be driven by the government's ETS legislation.
All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong's advisers may yet provide.
Geologist Bob Carter, carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth attended the meeting between Steve Fielding, Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen. Sackett has so far declined to answer Fielding's questions on this page.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Why the ETS is useless

Press Release

"Why the ETS is Useless" Powerpoint impacting across the world.

The Climate Sceptics

15/09/09


An new powerpoint which has been compiled by the climate sceptics President Leon Ashby has started to enthuse people worldwide about the pointlessness of the Emissions Trading Scheme and Americas Cap & Trade Scheme

The powerpoint (attached in PDF) has been put on numerous web sites already in several countries including geolgy, science and climate science web sites (e.g. see here http://carbon-sense.com/2009/09/13/climate-skeptics-090911)

People overseas are now modifying it into USA and UK versions

It explains the maths, the economics and the science of what an emissions trading scheme is about and clearly shows it is pointless in all three analysis.

It is very much a version that high school students should be able to view and understand also.

Scientists such as Professor Fred Singer
and Dr. Heinz Lycklama both
in the USA and Dr Miklos Zagoni from Hungary are very impressed with the presentation and Professor Fred Singer has started using it himself in his talks.

Climate sceptics president Leon Ashby hopes people pass the presentation around the internet, to their school friends, family members and politicians. "I believe everyone is Australia that thinks an Emissions Trading Scheme will save the planet should check out the facts on the presentation first'

contact
Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics
PO, Box 721, Mt Gambier SA 5290
Ph 0887259561 or 0887235550
info@climatesceptics.com.au
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/