Truth Seeking Scientists? Church of Latter Day Academics?

The ABC has reported (link in title) that a letter circulated by a Natalie Latter trying to prevent Lord Christopher Monckton from speaking at the Notre Dame University.  My suggestion to Ms Latter is to return to her Alma Mater, the University of WA, where Lord Monckton is also to speak (see HERE) buy a ticket and then show where he is wrong. 

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterised natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Has Ms Latter heard Lord Monckton speak or is she just reacting to warped media reports? She is quoted as saying that Lord Monckton stands for the kind of ignorance that universities have a duty to counter.

Has she observed Lord Monckton?

If she hasn't heard Lord Monckton is she herself speaking from a position of ignorance?

Perhaps, as an aside, Ms Latter could explain, if the "science is settled" and there is consensus, why more money is being granted for "Climate research."

As to the aforementioned media reports, Lord Monckton slammed recent media coverage.

"Only last week one of your leading newspapers, leading columnists, wrote a column saying that people like us should be gassed," he said.
"No apology and none of you have gone round to her house and thrust microphones in her face and said don't you think you're being a bit unfair.
"So there is very plainly a nasty double standard here."

Tom Nelson reminds us that IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri likened Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler:

Pachauri told a Danish newspaper in 2004: “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.”And remember all the publicity and letters like the one below (Latter's) that followed Pachauri's outrageous comment? Remember Pachauri's sincere apology?       Neither do I.

So, there was very plainly a nasty double standard there, as well!

Bunyip exposes the signatories to Latter's letter HERE

From Andrew Bolt:  

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_worthy_of_the_name_academic#85267Andrew Bolt Reports that there is a "scandalous attempt by “academics” not just to gag free speech, but to counter inconvenient opinions with a cowardly ban rather than an argument:

More than 50 Australian academics have signed a letter urging Western Australia’s Notre Dame University to cancel a speech by British climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton… "

Must have forgotten the basis of seeking the truth? Or afraid, if the truth comes out, their research grants for further investigation into what they claim is a scientific consensus (so why more research??) will be in jeopardy.

For Tickets (Natalie)

The Climate Sceptics (TCS) Blog: Lord Monckton Tour Dates and Tickets -latest

Bob Brown and Media selling up Australia

In a rather falteringly delivered address to the Press Club, Bob Brown sold out Australia and the Press Club also sold out Australia by not reporting the big story.

The Climate Sceptics are presenting Lord Christopher Monckton at a series of talks around Australia. Before his last Australian tour, Christopher had revealed that part of the draft Copenhagen agreement was a push for a UN-led World Government. 2GB's Alan Jones and others pointed this out. This was scoffed at by both the Main Stream Media and the Warmist blogs.

For Example, when Janet Albrechtsen wrote about it, Deltoid's Tim Lambert wrote:

Problem is, Monckton's reading of the proposed framework for negotiation -- hardly a completed treaty -- was woefully inaccurate. And that's a nice way of putting it. The document clearly does nothing whatsoever to promote any sort of world government, and indeed, it refers to the efforts of national governments repeatedly.

Yesterday, in his Press Club address, Bob Brown called for a World Government. He said one person, one vote. He also said that the headquarters could be here in Australia. Well, Bob, with a World population of 6,775,235,700 and an Australian population of 21,875,000; that makes us only 0.32% of the world's population.

We could have world headquarters in Australia? Tell him he's dreaming, son. Incidently, the world government rant by Brown is not included in the Green's official transcript linked in title.


 In 2006 Bob Brown was a guest of talk-show host Dolly Putin: (From The Age)

Senator Brown will be the special guest of talk-show host Dolly Putin, an opinionated blonde described (by herself) as a heady cocktail of Pamela Anderson and Germaine Greer. The proud owner of a petrol-guzzling four-wheel-drive, Dolly doesn't believe in global warming or the scarcity of water. And the problem with endangered animals, she says, is that there are just too many of them.

Yesterday, Dolly Putin again linked up with Bob Brown. Bob Brown address included:

Some $50 billion reaped from Australia’s mineral resources will be sent overseas as dividends to foreign owners according to a Greens-commissioned paper I am releasing today - Foreign ownership of Australian mining by economist Naomi Edwards.

Naomi Edwards is the real name of  comedienne Dolly Putin. It appears her paper on mining prepared for the Greens was another comedy address. Matthew Stephens writes of this report in the Australian:

Just for starters, every assessment of the level of foreign ownership of Australia's mineral wealth, and therefore the level of capital outflow in dividends, is rendered materially wrong by a relatively simple error that could have been avoided if only Edwards had bothered to contact the companies that are the focus of her assessment.
Edward says 83 per cent of the mining industry is foreign-owned, a conclusion based on the view that BHP Billiton (which does not have a hyphen, Naomi) is 76 per cent-owned by foreign shareholders and and Rio Tinto is 83 per cent foreign-owned.

Perhaps, Dolly, er sorry, Naomi should go back to funny ha-ha instead of funny peculiar.

Increased CO2 aids World's Food Production.

Global rice production reaches 476 million tons in 2011 Link

Global rice production is expected to touch 476 million tons in 2011, on the back of improved weather conditions, as the influence of La Niña is expected to neutralize by June, United Nation’s body FAO said.

The recovery of Latin America’s production, particularly in the Mercosur block gave the world harvest a significant boost.
The world rice production reached a new record in 2010, at 464 million tons (696 million tons paddy), up 1.8% from the previous season, FAO said.
“Although very preliminary, world paddy production in 2011, is forecast to expand by 2.5% to 713 million tons (about 476 million tons, milled basis), reflecting expectations of improved weather conditions, as the influence of La Niña is expected to fade away by June,” it said.

 Can it be that increased CO2, instead of poisoning the world,  is helping to increase the growth in the biomass?

 

Lord Monckton Tour over - thanks to all who attended

Lord Christopher Monckton

LORD MONCKTON TOUR

2011

A Carbon (Dioxide) Tax will

BANKRUPT

AUSTRALIA

THE SCIENCE DOES NOT JUSTIFY IT

Lord Monckton
explained why

Lord Christopher Monkton's 2011 tour of Australia has now concluded. 

TCS President says: "He did a brilliant job!" We have a great deal of gratitude to Christopher for helping to expose the falsified  man-made CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Bob Brown doesn't understand or is devious.

This morning on ABC's Insiders, Bob Brown said that Tony Abbott's proposed tax cuts would cut at least $15 billion from Revenue. He went on to say that therefore Abbott would have to cut jobs from Hospitals, Schools....

"Tony Abbott is aiming to put the burden onto households. And if those figures your panel was talking about are true, bang goes - he says, he's going to cut government services. Well bang goes 40,000 or 50,000 teachers, nurses.."

Does he not understand that Hospitals and schools are State responsibilities? How long has he been in Parliament now?

"Put all those together you're looking at minimum $15 billion-a-year missing from revenue. And that's going to be a cut to government services. It's got to be schools, hospitals, railways, defence."

One out of four, Bob. Defence is a Federal Government Responsibility. The other three, schools, hospitals, railways  are State Responsibilities.


He also said that the carbon dioxide tax would have negligible effect on the rich coal mining companies but later in the interview said some of those same companies would have to close down as that is the purpose of the tax.

Oh, look Barrie, all the estimates of the impact of a pricing scheme like this on coal are down there in 1, 2, 3 per cent on their profit line. 

Later Barrie said:

But when you say negligible impact do you also say then that no coal mines will closed?

 BOB BROWN: I would expect that in the future we are going to see some of the most polluting enterprises in the country have a struggle. That's the nature.

Bob also said that we were way behind Germany and China. Wake up and smell the roses, Bob.

Dr David Evans, who was a climate change adviser to the Howard and Rudd governments, said it would take less than five days at current emission levels for China and India to spew out 100 megatonnes of CO2 - the approximate amount that Australia aims to save annually by 2020. By that time, Australia has pledged to cut emissions by between five and 15 per cent relative to 2000 levels.
(Dr Evans will be touring with Lord Monckton, speaking in Perth 4th July, Newcastle 6th July, Sydney 7th July, North Sydney 8th July and at an Anti-carbon dioxide tax rally in Hyde Park at noon on the 9th July.)

Bob Brown closed by saying that Tony Abbott doesn't understand consensus. Do you, Bob? You have often mentioned the "scientific consensus" which is an oxymoron!

2GB's Ray Hadley describes Bob Brown's plans as lunacy:

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9259

The Corruption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A National Peril

From The Hawaii Reporter by Michael Fox PhD. Full Article linked in title.

Michael, writing for an Hawaiian Paper, calls it a National Peril. He should have said an International Peril as everything he says applies equally to Australia and around the world. Michael begins:

As time passes the global warming fiasco becomes more and more understandable, and more incredulous, more unbelievable. Hard-nosed physical evidence of man-made global warming has yet to be provided by the promoters of warming, even after a nominal $80 billion dollars have been spent in the attempt to do so. Since some of the ideas for mitigating man-made global warming (yet to be demonstrated) involve trillion dollar measures, it is crucially important that we get the science right. If we don’t get the science right, we’ll never get the policy right.

He discusses the crippling of the energy sources which will cripple the US economy. Other posts on these pages have said the same thing for Australia.

We are also learning that international powers have organized into the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is part of the United Nations for the purpose of limiting or abolishing the production of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. While the US is clearly targeted for these crippling measures other members of the UN other developing nations simply will not be implementing with these suicidal measures. The IPCC is also the brainchild of Maurice Strong, a billionaire socialist working closely with the UN. At the Rio conference of the IPCC in 1992 Maurice Strong made this statement to thousands of supporting fans and international leaders:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. (http://www.whale.to/a/strong_h.html).(See also Is Maurice - Strong on Global Warming.)

Michael mentions that electrical energy has helped develop nations. Then goes on to talk of the IPCC and HimalayaGate and how 16 claims of impending doom in the 2007 IPCC report came from enviro-activists and the Greenpeace/IPCC tie-up -see HERE.

Too few Americans and far too few media people know anything about the environmental movement and its transformation over the past 40 years into something vastly different. In (Greenpeace Founder Patrick) Moore’s words they have become far more extreme and whose politics is little more than neo-Marxism in green garb. Moore was quite specific and pointed out some of the characteristics of the environmental movement today:

• Tend strongly to be anti-human
• Anti-science and technology
• Anti-trade and anti-capitalism
• Anti-business
• Anti-civilization
• Invariably misleading

Read Full article HERE

Author: Michael Fox

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. A former Hawaii resident, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mike@foxreport.org

Lord Monckton, Ross Garnault and that Swastika.

Today there will be a barrage in the Main Stream Media (MSM) against Lord Monckton who said, whilst displaying a Swastika, that Professor Garnault had a fascist point of view.


Wait for the feigned cries of "shock," "horror" and "How could he!" from all of the left-leaning press.


However, did we hear a lament from the MSM over the exploding pig that used to be on Your ABC's children's pages?

Did we hear even a peep from the press when the Alarmists released a video in which children who expressed anti-warmist views were blown up?


What did the MSM say about these climate Alarmists?


Jill Singer:" I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide." 

Reminiscent of the Nazi death chambers.


Richard Glover said: "Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." 

Just like the Jews were tattoo-ed by Hitler.

Even Elizabeth Farrelly used repugnant imagery re Climate Sceptics: "They are the cane toads of contemporary culture: ugly, ubiquitous, toxic to most other life forms and adept at using their peculiar behaviour to force change in ours."



Again,  when these offensive remarks were published, there was no response from the MSM. 

Incidently, when the Climategate e-mails such as the travesty re the lack of warming,  hide the temperature decline etc etc were leaked, the MSM again were found wanting by non-publication of the frauding of the science.


So, was Lord Monckton wrong?  He definitely attracted attention to the Climate Realist point of view. How accurate were his remarks? Garnaut IS acting in a ‘fascist’ manner in that he is expecting everyone to accept authority without question. 

Czech Physicist Lubos Motl says:

I think that Lord Monckton’s description is pretty much valid. The discussion about Mr Garnaut’s personal plans is legitimate because he is just way too important in Australia....
Garnaut’s report wasn’t considered an assault on democracy just by Lord Monckton but even by completely mainstream political leader of Australia, Tony Abbott, see:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/garnaut-report-an-assault-on-democracy/

Lord Monckton asked the question whether Garnault’s words and actions may be understood as fascism and he has decided that the answer is Yes. And I understand where Lord Monckton is coming from. Now, I also know that the alarmists would love to link the skeptics to many bad things, including the Nazis, but there’s still a difference. What Lord Monckton says is supported by some facts and tight analogies – actual plans how to reorganize the (Australian) society; what the alarmists are saying is not supported by anything.

Iinstitute of Private Enterprise Founder Des Moore Writes:

In an almost perfect inversion of normal usage, Garnaut trashes anybody who objects to a big, new tax as a sectional interest, whereas, in perfect socialist European terminology, those in favour of a giant new tax are supporting "the national interest". In his deeply flawed report, Garnaut gives almost perfect Australian expression to the European sensibility. Garnaut's description of the international environment is wilfully misleading and flatly contradicted by the much more impressive Productivity Commission report.

There is also something profoundly offensive to democratic practice in the way the Gillard government has shovelled out vast amounts of public money to long-term friends of the Labor Party, such as Garnaut and Tim Flannery, so that, with a wholly spurious and confected institutional credibility, they can declare: government good, opposition bad.

Christopher Monckton has apologised. The apology will be printed in the Sun-Herald on Sunday.

“Let me begin with an unreserved apology. In a recent lecture, I should not have described the opinions of Professor Ross Garnaut, the Australian Government’s climate economist, as “fascist”. I apologize humbly. Will there be similar apologies from those who have called us “climate deniers” or “denialists”, or who say we should be tattooed with our opinions, or imprisoned, or barred from Australia, or tried for “high crimes against humanity”?” 

Was Christopher Monckton over the top? Perhaps. Was he justified in his statements? Certainly. 

Better yet, why not judge for yourself. Lord Monckton will be speaking around Australia soon. For tour dates and tickets see HERE

Also Published on Menzies House

Inconsistent comments around the CO2 tax

Letter to the Editor  -  by Leon Ashby

Inconsistent comments around the CO2 tax


Dear Sir,
              Have you noticed how inconsistent positions seem to be the rage.?

Steve Fielding is sceptical of a need for a CO2 tax, but isn`t going to support a plebiscite vote that could end its progress.
Julia Gillard wants a consensus on a CO2 tax before it comes in but will not allow Australians to vote on it before it comes in.
The Greens love plebiscites except when someone else suggests one and
Tony Abbott wants a plebiscite but won`t be influenced by its verdict.

However I think most would agree a plebiscite is far better value than actors, economists and others spouting "paid rhetoric" at us.

Maybe we could get better value from a $80 million dollar plebiscite and have another question to clarify the issue further e.g.

1.  Do you support a law introducing a carbon (dioxide) Tax?
2.  Do you believe climate change cannot be stopped or substantially limited by human action so it is better to deal with any problems (e.g. sea level rises) as they arise?

Personally I love the idea of the parliament hearing the will of the people and just like undie changes - the more often - the better.

Leon Ashby
The Climate Sceptics

"It's the Sun - Stupid" Re-visited

Joe D'Aleo talks about how the satellite data -" the most reliable data; the best coverage of the globe" - shows that 2008 was the 14th coldest in thirty years; those global datasets have been contaminated by the fact that two thirds of the globe's stations dropped out in 1990 - most of them rural.

Obviously this means that now there is more effect from Urban Heat Islands in the numbers, which exagerrates Global Warming.

Jay Lehr mentions the very low sunspot activity and says: "We are not only in a cooling period, we are going to be staying in it for a couple of decades..."

Jay also says something that our Green/Labor Government should consider before passing any Carbon Dioxide Tax Legislation: "It just seems silly to not recognise that the Earth's climate is driven by the Sun; ....it is really arrogant for mankind to think he controls the climate of the Universe..."

Anthony Watts (WUWT) reports

BREAKING – major AAS solar announcement: Sun’s Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

and then reports that all three of these lines of research point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.

Turning up the heat on cooling, John O'Sullivan of Climate Realist writes that "NASA has been caught out hiding hiding sunspot data to prop up dying global warming cult. Inconvenient new ice age imminent."

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.

Meanwhile, my mate from down at the Freedom Pub, Alan Caruba writes on his "Warning Signs" blog:

Since the late 1980s a “consensus” of scientists, we were told, agreed that the Earth was in a period of “global warming” and anybody who disputed that was a “skeptic” or a “denier.”

Then, in 1998, the Earth began to cool. The handful of scientists at the heart of the global warming hoax began to sweat and not from the heat, but because they knew their scheme, created and blessed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would soon be revealed. Frantic emails went back and forth as they tried to come up with some way of keeping the lie alive.

Alan mentions that the agricultural economy paid attention to the Sun's activity and kept records.

From 1645 to 1715, virtually no sunspots appeared and this phenomenon called the Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age. Rivers froze over in Europe and America. Crops failed. Revolutions occurred.

 Now that we have entered another period of low sun-spot activity, Alan issues this warning:

What is not being said, however, is that this predicted Little Ice Age could very well turn into a very Big Ice Age. It’s due. It could start tomorrow. Bundle up!

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

WHY DO WE PRETEND TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE? 

THE winter of 1684 stands out as the most extreme in a spell of cold weather in the late 17th and early 18th centuries now known as the Little Ice Age.

The frost, records the diary of Londoner John Evelyn, had started in mid-December and by January 2 the Thames at London Bridge had begun to freeze over. By the 11th there were “streets of booths set up upon the Thames”. By February 3 “coaches plied the ice from Westminster to the Temple” and all London had taken to the ice. There were horse races, puppet shows and bull-baiting in a “Bacchanalian carnival on the water”.

The cold weather experienced in Europe and North America in the late 17th and early 18th centuries is all the more fascinating for having coincided with a period in which astronomers noted an almost complete absence of sunspots.

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253210/Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-Why-do-we-pretend-to-understand-climate-change-#ixzz1PyVaHdxR

 

Falsification confirmed - Please Arrange funeral for the AGW hypothesis

When I posted the Bob Carter videos, in the post: "The hypothesis was falsified years ago..." I had many emails saying that temperatures are still rising. Steve Goodard has posted, using the marvellous Wood for Trees facility,  that

GISS Shows No Warming Over The Last Decade

supported by graphs using the GISS temperature records and the Hadley CRUT records. Whilst CO2 levels continue to rise, GISS shows no temperature rise in the last decade, and the CRUT graph shows temperatures falling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Steve's REAL SCIENCE:

Even with Hansen’s phony Arctic pink, he can’t keep temperatures rising.
Had CRUT uses a more legitimate scientific approach, and they show temperatures declining over the last decade.

 

Winning Hearts and Minds to Climate and Energy Reality

“On June 12th, the ICSC released their International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Strategic Plan—please see http://tinyurl.com/6cogj2f. ”

Government officials often privately admit that they would welcome an opportunity to abandon the nonsensical “fight against climate change”. Climate skepticism is even more commonplace among the public, an increasing fraction of whom regard the heavy emphasis on climate change funding and subsidizing alternative energy as pandering to lobby groups.

Yet most of our leaders are still afraid to change course as long the public and media are believed (see * in next para) to overwhelmingly agree with climate alarmism. For it to be feasible for politicians to move in a sensible direction on climate and energy, the public and mass media must regularly hear from scientists who have a realistic perspective of the issues. To be effective at swaying public opinion, these experts, and the groups they work with, must be regarded as “honest brokers”, free from vested political and commercial interests. This is where ICSC has a special role to play.

(* Note: Real public opinion is difficult to quantify since virtually all surveys on this topic ask loaded questions so that they yield the results desired by their sponsors. The ICSC Strategic Plan includes a proposal to coordinate objective polls on climate change and alternative energy and then broadly publicize their results.)

Over the past four years, ICSC has established itself as the only truly international, non-partisan climate realist group in the world. As explained in our strategic plan, our coalition has effectively been a successful prototype, a proof of concept demonstrating what can be accomplished by taking an international, non-partisan, science-based approach to the climate controversy. Our research indicates that there is a vast constituency in the public and even main stream media—people who are not right wing—who would support climate realism if they could do so without abandoning their political biases. That is why it is now critical that ICSC secure the financial support to allow us to continue and spread our influence across the world.

With the increasing implementation of national, state, and even municipal climate change legislation in many countries (see here) and the next major UN climate conference (COP17) just months away, we must move rapidly. Some governments are already indicating that they may yield to international pressure for severe GHG reductions by developed countries only (see here, for example). Regardless, most developed nations have said that they will submit to legally binding emission targets under UN auspices if developing countries also have binding targets.

Many observers assert that developing nations will never agree to these restrictions and so a global deal will not happen. For reasons we have discussed here, such a view is naïve. An all-nation legally-binding international GHG treaty based on the Cancun Agreements may very well come about.

If a Cancun-based treaty does eventually became international law, GHG reduction would proceed in developing nations only to the extent that they do not interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of “social and economic development and poverty eradication” [See Cancun Agreement].  Developed countries would be held to their emission reduction obligations regardless of the impact on their societies. The Cancun Agreement also specifies that UN monitoring is to be much more intrusive in developed countries than in developing countries.

Developed countries may effectively find themselves in an extension to the Kyoto Protocol after all. We must work hard to ensure that this never happens.

ICSC have demonstrated that we have the scientific and policy knowledge as well as the communications capability to influence the climate debate in a way no other group has to date—namely through expanding the tent of those who support climate realism to include those from across the political spectrum. It must be made “safe” for people to be climate realists irrespective of their political beliefs. Otherwise, climate alarmism will put a major burden on our societies for years to come.

Since we rely solely on contributions from supporters like you, we ask that you consider making a confidential donation to help ICSC get our message out to enough of the public so that the stage is set for governments to do the right thing on the climate file. Donations may be made by credit card or PayPal using the “Donate” button at the top of any page on the http://www.climatescienceinternational.org site, or by cheque filled out to “International Climate Science Coalition” and sent to:

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada

THE TRUTH ABOUT POWER STATIONS.

Post by Terry Cardwell

Bob Brown’s and Julia Gillard’s endless tirade about thermal power stations being dirty and emitting black smoke from their chimneys, polluting the atmosphere and creating catastrophic Global Warming, oops climate change, now, has hit a new low.

When they tried to foister on to us  the photos of Battersea Power Station in London, that has been closed for over  thirty years and only a shell, as a polluting Australian power station they  proved what deceitful and corrupt  ‘individuals’ they and their  Green cohorts are.

Even the smoke was superimposed on the picture. If you look closely you will see it is cockeyed on some of the chimneys. Also it would never have emitted  that much smoke.
These people, Gillard, Brown, Milne and the rest of the Labor and Green party are so desperate to push their carbon tax that they will resort to ANY measures to achieve what they want and are desperate to stay in power.


They follow the philosophy of the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who said:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
                                       -------------------------------
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them.
                                    ---------------------------------
Do these seem familiar- they should do they follow this philosophy to the letter, pushing  the biggest scam the world has even seen.
Any businessman will tell you if they tried to sell their product on TV, with these sort of lies and deception the ACCC or Fair Trade Practices Commission would have them locked up and fined heavily for their deliberate distortion and lies.  AND rightly so. Yet these liars are allowed to get away with it. WHY?

To put to rest the lies about the emissions from modern power stations, I have listed photos and information below of many major modern power stations in Queensland, N.S.W and Victoria.

Note how little  smoke or pollution is coming from the power station stacks.

The Power Stations are under full load or close to it. Bayswater has one unit shut down at the time.

The cooling towers are the large round cylinders with vapour rising from them.

The condensation rising from them is as pure as most drinking water with a conductivity of 350 to 450 micro mhos. Similar to tap water. Notice how the condensation finishes to nothing,  NOT falling on the ground.

These are no different to normal clouds.  Clouds-- that ‘other’  97% of so called Green house gases.

Without them there would be NO rain and a virtually dead planet. i.e. no water— no life.

One person tried to say they were full of mercury and other poisons. This is the sort of rubbish they try to lie about. The same person, a member  of a zero emissions website who are  pushing wind generators, compared carbon dioxide with cancer cells !!!!! Another compared it to arsenic. You decide what you think of them.!!!

 NSW  Power Stations

Bayswater Power Station

 Bayswater Power Station – 4 x 660 Megatts units.    Black bituminous coal; Condensate cooling; Cooling Towers.   One unit off line.

  

 Eraring Power Station- 4 x 660MW Units.  Black bituminous coal. Condensate cooling; Lake water.

Mount Piper  - 2 x 660 MW units                                                                                            

Black bituminous coal Condensate cooling; Cooling towers 

Liddell Power Station    4 x 500MW units

Black bituminous coal. Condensate cooling; Lake cooled

         Munmorah Power station originally 4 x 350MW units                                               

         2 units mothballed. And 2  units now 300MWs                                                 

Black  bituminous coal.  Condensate cooling; Lake cooled

Vales Point Power Station  B Stations.       2 x 660MW units 

Black bituminous coal.  Condensate cooling; Lake cooled

 

Wallerang C Power Station . 2 x500MW units.

 Black bituminous coal. Condensate cooling;   Cooling towers

QUEENSLAND  POWER  STATIONS.

                          Stanwell Power station near Rockhampton.                          

                              4 x 350MW units Condensate cooling; Cooling towers                             
                                                   Black bituminous coal.

 Tarong Power Station 4 units, Total generation  

1470 MWs. Black bituminous coal   Condensate cooling; Cooling towers

Callide Power Station  2 x350MWS, 2 x 450MWs                              

Black bituminous coal. Condensate cooling Lake for                    
B station. Cooling Tower for C station

Kogan Creek Power Station. 1 x 750MW unit.   Black bituminous coal. 

Condensate cooling; Lake cooled.

  Gladstone Power Station. 6 x 280MW  units.                              

     Black bituminous coal. Condensate cooling; Lake cooling.    

Milmerren power station – 4 x 440MW unitsBlack bituminous coal. 

Condensate cooling;  Lake cooling           

VICTORIAN POWER STATIONS.   

Hazelwood Power Station.  8 x 200MW units.                                              

   Brown Coal. Condensate cooling ; Lake cooling.

This is how the greens altered the photo  to make it look  like massive pollution. They are corrupt to the core.

 

              Loy Yang A Power Station 4 x 500MW units                                             

              Brown coal. Condensate Cooling; Cooling towers

                                                                                                                                                         

This is what the Greens do to a photo to tell lies. Same power station at full load. The photos  have been   ‘doctored’ to make it look bad. Compare the difference.

                             Loy Yang B Power Station   2 x500MW units                                                 

                             Brown coal;  Condensate cooling; Cooling Towers                                           

Loy Yang A  photos doctored by a  Melbourne newspaper. Notice how the black smoke and clouds appear from no where. The black ‘smoke' does not even reach the chimneys. A very poor effort.

                          The white clouds are pure evaporation from the cooling towers.

There are other power stations but those above serve as a clear example of how clean power stations really are.
The length the Greens will go to is nothing but deliberate lies and deceit.  Altering photos to make them look bad. The word treason would suit them very well.

Terry worked in power stations for 25 years, rising from an apprentice and fitter to power plant operator. He says the hysteria about harmful emissions from burning coal stems from the spreading of misinformation and he wants to set the record straight.

Terry's websites      www.secondtonone.com.au
 http://terrycardwellsblog.blogspot.com/ 

                                             

Banaba on the rise again?

Rabi

Just short of 100 years ago a young cadet from the British Foreign Office stepped ashore for the first time on Ocean Island, an island of around two and a half square miles sitting just below the equator. The cadet later wrote his first impressions:

"...as we rounded a bend, the dwellings of a Baanaban village overarched by palms came in sight on the seaward slope below us. We caught glimpses, through twined shadow and sunlight, of crimson and cream hibiscus, of thatches raised on corner posts, of neatly matted floors beneath them, of bronzed bodies in brightly coloured loin-cloths. We heard the chatter of laughing women and the shouts of children across a murmur of surf that rose muted through the trees. Scents of gardenia and frangipani floated up to us mixed with savours of cooking."

The young newly-wedded arrival was Arthur Grimble who recorded life in the  former Gilbert and Ellis Island Protectorate in "A Pattern of Islands." This island Paradise has had a tumultuous history. Ocean Island or Banaba is 300km east of Nauru and like Nauru was guano covered. Mining from 1900 to 1979 stripped away 90% of the Island's surface.

The Japanese occupied the island from 1942 to 1945, destroying most of the villages and then the British protectorate relocated most of the population to Rabi (pronounced Rambi) a Fijian Island off Vanua Levu.

The majority of Banabans still live on Rabi.

The Banaban Voice reports the many islands are not drowning but growing:

For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.
Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on average.
Despite this, Kench and Webb found that just four islands have diminished in size since the 1950s. The area of the remaining 23 has either stayed the same or grown (Global and Planetary Change, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.11.001).

At its highest point, Tuvalu stands just 4.5 metres out of the Pacific. It is widely predicted to be one of the first islands to drown in the rising seas caused by global warming. Yet Arthur Webb and Paul Kench found that seven islands in one of its nine atolls have spread by more than 3 per cent on average since the 1950s. One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares, or nearly 30 per cent of its previous area.
Similar trends were observed in the neighbouring Republic of Kiribati. The three major urbanised islands in the republic - Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai - increased by 30 per cent (36 hectares), 16.3 per cent (5.8 hectares) and 12.5 per cent (0.8 hectares), respectively.

The article quotes the University of Adelaide's Warmist  Barry Brook who said at first he was surprised by the report, but added that the sea level rise is accelerating.

Perhaps Barry had been listening to the The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group

who, as reported by FOX News,

decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

The Renowned oceanographic expert Nils-Axel Morner says that there is no alarming sea level rise.
In an interview and paper published in 21st Century he showed that, contrary to the IPCC scenario, the sea is NOT rising at a high rate, there is no serious threat and no real problem. See SPPI pdf - The Great Sea Level Humbug.  See also The IPCC is Wrong.

Is Maurice - Strong on Man-made Global Warming

Is Maurice Strong a keen advocate trying to save the planet or has he pretended to be Green to get rich and take over the world?

                  Quote: "This is all about money and power."

John Izzard wrote an article for Quadrant entitled Discovering Maurice Strong: The Yellow Brick Road to Climate Change.

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs.

But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin? 

He then says that the whole climate change business started with Maurice Strong. As Tim Ball told 2GB's Alan Jones:

"He very deliberately did it.  He set up the United Nations Environment Program and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological Organisation and the IPCC was set up by them.  That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC.  They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it and they also of course provide the funding and that has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate and Strong knew this.  But this is why he organized it that way through the WMO..."

John Izzard says that Strong devised a plan to get his World Governance plan up and running:

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.

Many government organisations are dedicated to Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.

 

Emeritus Professor John D. Trudel, in his post Chains of Law writes about Agenda 21:

Some say it was actually started by the KGB in the last days of the Cold War, but I've not been able to validate this. However the names of those in power we hear on TV – George Soros, Obama, Al Gore, and their associates are connected to this, supporting it, and gaining power from it. This program to was cloaked in high purpose, sustainability and saving the world, but its objectives are global governance and totalitarian control. The person who launched Agenda 21 was a communist, Maurice Strong.

Trudel goes on to say that Strong allegedly stole -

$988,885 from his employer, the UN, but resigned his position, fled to China, and was never convicted.

In his Quadrant article, Izzard says:

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since. 

So, was the whole AGW movement started as a plot for great wealth? Follow the money trail - Strong, Gore, Goldman Sachs....

STRONG-man or Crook? 

  

Wind and Solar Power is all hot air and no substance

Guest Post by TonyfromOz.

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

Can wind and solar replace or even compete with coal and nuclear power.?

This article looks at whether wind and solar, as mooted and promoted and subsidised by the Federal government with taxpayers’ money can replace existing coal power or be a viable alternative to nuclear power if coal is phased out.

For replacement of power on this scale, the most important thing to look at is not the Nameplate Capacity of the Plant, the size, but the actual power delivered and that is shown in the fourth column where all bar one are the same, that 69 TWH (TerraWattHours)

This figure of 69 TWH is one third of all the power delivered from coal fired sources in Australia. The total power consumed across the whole of Australia is 300 TWH. The Coal Fired part of that comes in at 230 TWH, and 30% of that is that figure of 69 TWH.

This would be the equivalent of taking out of the current Australian coal fired sector of 4 plants similar in size to Bayswater and Eraring. All power is consumed across the whole of Australia, but the vast bulk of that is on the Eastern side of the Country, so, for this scenario, I would be taking the equivalent of one large scale plant from Queensland, one from Victoria, and 2 from NSW.

I have included Nuclear Power here, full in the knowledge that is for comparison purposes only, as this is something that has very little chance of eventuating in Australia. If it did, first you would need to construct a relatively large full scale Processing plant to take the ore from the ‘raw dirt’  to the fuel rods used in the Plants, and this entails five stages of processing. As well as that, you would also need to construct a reprocessing plant to reprocess the fuel from the spent rods back to the stage where it can be reused at the original processing plant for rods again. Either that reprocessing facility, or a dry storage facility for spent rod storage. All of this requires discussion, legislation, and all that entails, which would be a long process of itself, hence all this prior to actual construction of the Nuclear Power Plant itself.

For new coal fired power, I have used the accepted figure for costing of $525 per KW for construction.

For Nuclear Power I am using current existing technology, and in this case, the most recent Third Generation BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) plants. There will be four of these plants, each plant with two reactors and 2 large generators. The accepted costing figure for construction for these is $2,000 per KW.

For Concentrating Solar 1, I am using a proposed plant Abengoa Solana in Arizona as the guide here. This Plant has a Nameplate Capacity of 250MW, but, as I explained earlier, it can only produce a firm 50MW from total solar, as the compound is kept reserved in a molten State to produce steam to drive the turbine. This effectively means that the total Power delivered is reduced to 50MW and can be available for around 18 hours a day at the maximum. So, that means to actually deliver that 69 TWH in full, you will need 210 of these plants, at the current price of $1.4 Billion.

For Concentrating Solar 2, I am using the same plant, only, instead of diverting the compound, solar is used to produce a firm 150 MW, and it will do this for 12 hours. For the remaining 12 hours, as is the case with Abengoa Solana, they use an on site Natural Gas fired turbine to drive the generator after the solar component becomes less than the molten state required to make steam to drive that turbine. This means the plant can produce a constant 150MW. So, for this purpose, you will need 62 of those equivalent plants to supply the requisite 69 TWH.

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/