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

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

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

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

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Mental Illness: SMH Journalists Smitten?

http://tiny.cc/ya5he
Is Mental Illness on the rise due to Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Certainly there is a rise - a rise in reports in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Back in 2009, we had Stephanie Peatling writing:

Climate-change research to examine human health

THE effects of climate change on health - particularly heat-related diseases such as dengue fever - will be examined as part of a research project to be announced by the Federal Government today.
Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, will use a tour of Queensland mining towns this week to announce $10 million for the CSIRO and Australian National University to look at what will happen to human health as temperatures rise.
"We need to better understand the diversity of these health risks, who will be most vulnerable, and the action governments, individuals and communities can take to reduce the risks," Senator Wong said
Lyndall Strazdins in July this year wrote: 
Climate Inaction risks children's well-being.
Climate change, if allowed to continue, will have a dramatic and lasting impact on the lives of our children and grandchildren.There is widespread scientific consensus that doing nothing will mean this century is characterised by higher temperatures, shifting rainfall systems, severe droughts and more fires and storms.

We have Erik Jensen Health writing on 29th August:
RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse. As many as one in five people reported ''emotional injury, stress and despair'' in the wake of these events.An AAP report, also on 29th August:If we don't start tackling climate change, Australians will be increasingly depressed, anxious or stressed.... and more prone to substance abuse, a new report says. The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, draws on the work of mental health experts, community practitioners and survivors of natural disasters.
On the same day, pushing the point, the Herald also published a separate AAP report.
If we don't start tackling climate change, Australians will be increasingly depressed, anxious or stressed.... and more prone to substance abuse, a new report says.
We have the delightful Graham Readfern on 31st August:
When the climate throws up extreme events like cyclones, floods and droughts, the most visible impacts tend to be twisted metal, splintered timber and cracked earth.
But a new report argues some of the most enduring and least considered effects of severe weather are the lingering psychological traumas.
The report, published by The Climate Institute this week, examines the mental health issues and social dislocation that unchecked climate change could cause, based on the impact of recent floods, bushfires, droughts and cyclones.
The last three accounts above all quote the report "A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change" issued by The Climate Institute.

The link above goes to a page at The Climate Institute that begins: "Climate change is here, now."

Well, er, I'm underwhelmed.

They are right of course. Climate change IS here, climate change IS now. Climate has been changing since time immemorial. So?

So,  they go on to say:
While it is often difficult to draw a clear line between a particular weather event and long-term climate change, there is a strong relationship between the emerging global pattern of disasters and global warming—whether long and insidious, like drought, or short and violent, like bushfires.1
The link goes to a NOAA site which does not say that there is a strong relationship between the emerging global pattern of disasters and global warming; does not say that such events are unusual or are increasing due to AGW.

The Climate Institute report then says:
Scientists warn that a failure to reverse rising carbon pollution levels will see Australia’s inherently moody climate become even more volatile. With inaction or delay on pollution comes a sharp rise in the frequency, intensity and extent of heatwaves, bushfires and drought, as well as more torrential downpours, and tropical storms with increasing ferocity.2
That link goes HERE.
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that:
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
  • Humans are very likely to be causing most of the warming that has been experienced since 1950
  • It is very likely that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past.
Oh really? Quoting the IPCC that relies on reports from alarmist bodies like The Climate Institute, the IPCC whose Summary for Policy Makers is not supported by the "supporting" papers. Quoting the IPCC who try to suppress world recognised experts like Fred Singer?

And on what great medical authority do the Climate Institute rely for their report re mental health?
The damage caused by a changing climate is not just physical. Recent experience shows extreme weather events also pose a serious risk to public health, including mental health and community wellbeing, with serious flow-on consequences for the economy and wider society.3
3
CLIMATE CHANGE HEALTH IMPACTS IN AUSTRALIA
EFFECTS OF DRAMATIC CO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Report for the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Medical Association.

That's right. A report for the ACF. The ACF is another alarmist organisation pushing the falsified AGW hypothesis. Their report, in its conclusion states:
Future projections of unabated global greenhouse gas emissions for the medium-term, and of the climate change these would cause over the next 100 years and beyond, present a grave threat to both natural and human systems.
There has been NO proof that "unabated global greenhouse gas emissions" of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming. In fact, the hypothesis has been falsified. Falsified many times.

Consensus?

Yes. CO2 is innocent.

IPCC chief tries to silence opposing view.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
The eternal silence of these infinite spaces fills me with dread. - Blaise Pascal

Oppression can only survive through silence. - Carmen de Monteflores
 
Blaise Pascal was a very influential French mathematician and philosopher who,  in correspondence with Fermat, laid the foundations for the theory of probability.  One wonders what he would be thinking these days on the probability of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis being correct.

Would he weigh up the evidence?

Would he look at the fact of the data being massaged? Or the fact that weather stations have been compromised by siting next to jet exhausts and air conditioning outlets? Or the fact that the IPCC has relied on non-peer-reviewed reports from Warmist propaganda bodies like the WWF? Or the fact that the editors of scientific magazines, the source of peer-reviewed papers, have been heavied?

Now, another scientific body has been heavied by none other than the Vice Chair of the IPCC Prof. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele. (Ironically, Ypersele's name includes Pascal!)

Professor Claes Johnson (on his site Claes Johnson  on Mathematics and Science) has reported that he was indirectly invited to speak at a discussion on climate science organised by SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels.

SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels, Prof Henri Masson) organizes a conference for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Fondation Universitaire in Brussels on September 1, at 18 h00. Official invitation from SEII follows by E-mail.

The next day 2 September there will be a workshop with some of our Think Tank . Our preliminary programme looks as follows:

  • 18h15 S. Fred Singer : What is new in climate change?
  • 19 h 00 Claes Johnson : Blackbody radiation and Climate Thermodynamics
  • 19 h45 to 20 H30 : Questions and Answers
We are very happy to have this opportunity to bring together scientists and some politicians (we hope) and get some useful and interesting discussions.
Although the above stated that an "Official Invitation" would follow, the next correspondence that Prof Johnson received was from none other than the Vice Chair of the IPCC. Prof Johnson continues:
The effect of the letter was that the SEII/Fondation Universitaire seminar was cancelled, stopped, censored. IPCC managed to suppress questioning of the science presented by IPCC, by a forceful intervention by one of its vice-presidents.
What to say about this? Well, I am not surprised. I read that the burning of my mathematics book by KTH supported by media and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (documented as KTH-gate), is now used to motivate to also mute my voice.
Surely  Jean-Pascal van Ypersele has just put another nail in the IPCC's coffin.

The conference found a new location Rhode St. Genèse. Well done, SEII!


We have to shout it from the rooftops that the AGW hypothesis has been falsified. Oppression can only survive through silence.


 

Climate Change (aka AGW) blamed for 3 deaths at Pukkelpop Festival

Smith Westerns' Album Cover
D&T report from Belgium on stage collapse at the Pukkelpop Festival at which it is reported that "three people killed and 60 injured, with 11 of those injuries serious."(Link in title)
The Smith Westerns were on stage when it went down. They tweeted, “Stage collapsed max almost got crushed by the tress. I hope pukkelpop has insurance bc all our shit is broke” and “Praying no one got hurt. Wtf.” In addition to Pukkelpop and the Indiana State Fair, a Flaming Lips stage fell apart during a storm in Oklahoma, damaging about $800,000 worth of equipment, and Cheap Trick narrowly avoided disaster when their stage collapsed during the Ottawa Blues Festival.
Like all the other collapses this summer, Pukkelpop happened when a massive storm blew into the area. It seems like climate change, shoddy construction, or some combination of the two has made outdoor festivals downright scary and dangerous.
Several videos are on the linked site. TCS blog didn't think it was tasteful to add them here.

(H/ T Marc Morano)

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Cosmic Rays spur the formation of clouds. It's a CERNtancy!

CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. They virtually invented the internet. The first ever web site address was Info.cern.ch.

That changed the world.

Cartoons by Josh
Now, the 8,000 scientists from CERN (or at least 60 of them) have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

As Andrew Orlowski writes in The Register:

The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
As Andrew mentions, the results were posted in Nature HERE.
Nature 476, 429–433 (25 August 2011) doi:10.1038/nature10343
Received 09 September 2010: Accepted 24 June 2011 Published online 24 August 2011


Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.
Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a "regime shift" that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.
When (CLOUD's lead physicist) Dr (Jasper) Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century."
More from CERN here, and a video here
That short video is great. For another See post: Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery.


Saturday, August 27, 2011

Global Coal Use skyrockets; Global Temperatures fall.

From Pierre Gosselin's No Tricks Zone.

M. Gosselin has looked at BP's Statistical Review of World Energy - 2011.
According to the report, India and China alone are responsible for 90% of the world’s coal consumption increase, while renewable energy in the 2 countries plays nary a role. According to BP figures, global CO2 emissions rose 5.8% in the year 2010.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that China will add a whopping 600 gigawatts of coal power plant capacity by the year 2035, equivalent to the current capacity of the USA, EU and Japan – combined! So as China adds one coal power plant each week, Europe and the USA are lucky to get a single one approved during an entire year.
Pierre has chartered the increase in global coal consumption against the HadleyCrut Temperature figures to produce the above graph.

Read more at No Tricks Zone.

Friday, August 26, 2011

NASA Satellites detect drop in Sea Levels; Flannery drops Blue Mountain Beach House idea.

Image: S. Nerem, University of Colorado (from NASA Site)
Forget a beach house in the Blue Mountains, perhaps Tim Flannery knew something when he bought his sea-level house on the Hawkesbury.

From NASA:
The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year. While most years have recorded a rise in global sea level, the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific. The insets show sea level changes in the Pacific Ocean caused by the recent El Niño and La Niña (see http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo for more information on these images). 

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Peer-review Paper - Poleward Plant Progression Propaganda Pummeled

Image: CSIRO
Reference
Poloczanska, E.S., Smith, S., Fauconnet, L., Healy, J., Tibbetts, I.R., Burrows, M.T. and Richardson, A.J. 2011. Little change in the distribution of rocky shore faunal communities on the Australian east coast after 50 years of rapid warming. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 145-154. 


Seabra, R., Wethey, D.S., Santos, A.M. and Lima, F.P. 2011. Side matters: Microhabitat influence on intertidal heat stress over a large geographical scale. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 400: 200-208.

As the Idso's CO2 Science website  explains:
One of the main tenets of global warming orthodoxy is that as temperatures around the world rise, both terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals will be forced to migrate to cooler parts of the planet in order to avoid extinction, which for marine organisms can mean only that they must move poleward in latitude.
The authors had a fresh look at the surveys of marine fauna that had been conducted in the 1940s and 50s at 22 rocky shores sites located between 23 and 35ºS latitude.
Poloczanska et al. report that of the 37 species they encountered that had distributional data available from both time periods, "only six species showed poleward shifts consistent with predictions of global climate change." Four others actually moved in the opposite direction "inconsistent with expectations under climate change," while the rest "showed no significant changes in range edges."

The authors stated that it was the effect of wave exposure, local currents and the presence of large sand islands - and "not temperature.." that is the "primary factor influencing biogeographical distribution" along Australia's East Coast.

IPCC - Ink Blot or stain on Scientific Method?

My Photo
Roger Pielke, Jr.

is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also has appointments as a Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. I am also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.
 
Today he has written on his blog Science, Policy, Politics and occasionally other stuff
a post titled:

Ink Blots, Ambiguity and Outcomes in the Real World

He discusses how the IPCC (and I might add - all the sycophants and Non-Investigative Main Stream Media) blame any climate event on the planet with the falsified hypothesis of man-made (or Anthropogenic) Global Warming.

The ink blot nature of climate science would be a non-issue if it were a field like philosophy or cosmology in which people were debating non-empirical claims for academic interests. But climate science -- or at least a very visible part of that field -- has set forth on an evangelistic path in trying to convince the unconvinced of their views among politicians and the general public.  But the ink blot nature of climate science leaves climate scientists in a position of arguing from authority or demanding that people need "trust us."

After some argument, Professor Pielke closes:

There are two ways for the climate science community to move beyond an ink blot (if it wishes to do so). One would be to advance predictions that are in fact conventionally falsifiable (or otherwise able to be evaluated) based on experience.  This would mean risking being wrong, like economists do all the time. The second would be to openly admit that uncertainties are so large that such predictions are not in the offing. This would neither diminish the case for action on climate change nor the standing of climate science, in fact it may just have the opposite effect. 

The default will be the status quo, which means climate science as inkblot -- and the associated arguments from authority, "trust us" and politicization that comes along with it.  

Critical Look at Global Warming Data - Webinar

Critical Look at Global Warming Data: Wickedly Complex System Called Climate


Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:01 AM - 9:45 AM AEST 

Ross McKitrick

Subject: THIS SUNDAY: FREE Viewing Critical Look at Global Warming Data: Wickedly Complex System Called Climate speakers include Lindzen, Shaviv, Curry, McKitrick, and Carter


On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Peter Bonk <peterjbonk@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob Carter

 
Hello all,
 
This is the invite to the Over the Internet Symposium I have organized for the American Chemical Society meeting in Denver Colorado. The symposium will be held on Sunday, August 28th, 2011 from 12:50 pm to 5:45 pm Mountain Daylight Time,  3pm-7pm EDT.  Click the link and follow the directions to register. There is no charge to register.
 
I hope you will find this symposium an educational and informative adventure. Our speakers are:
 
William Stewart, Ross McKitrick (U Guelph), Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Bob Carter (James Cook University), and Richard Lindzen (MIT).

 
PLEASE forward this to any others that may be interested. If I get to 100 people registered by Thursday evening I can expand the number of folks who can hear this from 100 to 500 people- So spread the word.
 
Thanks
Pete


 https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/569495470

Once registered you will receive an email confirming your registration
with information you need to join the Webinar.
System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server
Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer

-

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Ramon Glazov: Conveying no Cognizance

Mr Glazov's Facebook Avatar.
I think this avatar indicates what sort of a person he is.
He obviously thinks that masking one's face and
 burning Postman Pat and stealing his cat is OK!



If you believe the ABC's DRUM Unleashed, there are some:
  "Unanswered questions on the Convoy of No Confidence."

There are some unanswered questions that Ramon Glazov, who penned the DRUM item, should address. Mr Glazov admits that he originally authored the piece for an online scream-sheet called Exiled Online.

An oligarchy is defined as "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

In a previous piece by this author in Exiled Online, he described Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest as an Oligarch.

Questions without notice for Mr Glazov:
  1. When did Mr Forrest take over the government? 
  2. Do you believe in Oligarchy or Democracy?
  3. Do you believe, after Julia's lie -There will be no carbon tax - that the current Australian Government was democratically elected. 
  4. Do you think for yourself? 

Exiled online must think that its readers can not think for themselves.
Exiled online published pieces like the two by Mr Glazov under this banner:


  In the current piece telling readers what they should think, we have some sloppy and inaccurate journalism by Mr Glazov. He describes the Convoy  of No Confidence participants as "Australian Teabaggers." Perhaps there might be a few in the group who have links to the Tea Party but in the main most would not and some may not even have heard of the Tea Party. Mind you, most, if not all, would agree that we are Taxed Enough Already.

Our intrepid reporter writes:
Climate-denying factory farmers? Check. Friends of convicted child-killers? Got em. A Pinochet-style fascist who wants to “inflict maximum pain” on the Australian economy by causing artificial famines? Yes, Sir! – ¡VIVA EL GENERALISSIMO!
Climate Denying Factory Farmers? First of all, Mr Glazov, the farmers are more aware of climate than the rest of the community. I don't believe that any of the convoy deny climate. I don't believe that any farmer would deny that climate changes. And Friends of convicted child-killers? Oh really? Would you like to name them? And would we believe some-one talking of child killers who uses a masked man and a burning postman as his facebook avatar?



And Factory Farmers, Mr Glazov? He is talking about Feed lot owners. The only Factory Farmers are the farmers with WindTurbine Factories on their properties. Speakers at the two rallies following the convoys into Canberra included Station Owners, Dairy Farmer, Cattleman, Politicians, Stock and Station Agent, Mining Innovator/Co Director, Geologist,  Feed Lot Owners, Trucking Industry, Hairdresser,, Biologist,  as well as representatives of the NFRA. There was a space reserved for any member of the Federal Government that wished to address the meeting but unfortunately they turned their backs on their constituents.


The Convoy of No Confidence grew from a social web forum called Just Grounds. 

The following is a reply to Mr Glazov by Julene Haack published on the DRUM:


Julene Haack, Just Grounds :

22 Aug 2011 6:02:13pm
I hope that The Drum will publish this, as I consider I have right of reply, having been named in this article. I also hope that it will be published in full and not truncated.

On one hand it would seem that Mr Glazov has inadequately researched the content of Just Grounds.

The discussion entitled "Convoy of No Confidence - Routes" has had 1672 replies. I will leave it to Mr Glazov to count how many individual posters in that one. It was one of our main Convoy discussions. The discussions for individual convoys that he has mentioned were offshoots from there and were primarily used for updating each convoy route.

Some selective reporting there.

On the other hand, it would appear that Mr Glazov has gone trawling through two years worth of discussions on Just Grounds to find a quote to put Mick Pattel in a bad light, without presenting the context in which that comment was made.

Mr Glazov interviewed people at Belmont Racecourse, but does not provide names for those to whom he spoke. In particular he does not name the driver who was "hired to make the journey".

He describes the people he spoke to as: "Nearly everyone I met was a casual, a one-timer, an UNPAID extra." (emphasis mine) Then later (ironically) he asks, Who is paying for the whole thing?

I'll answer him and I hope he reads my lips: There is NO funding by powerful economic or political or lobby groups for the Convoy.

It has been funded through the shallow pockets of the National Road Freighters Association (a small organisation of around 400 members) and through the personal pockets of convoy participants, with some wonderful towns putting on free meals and petrol vouchers, to help them on their way.

Mr Glazov can try to insinuate links to Exxon Mobil etc, but he will not find them.

Just Grounds online receives no funds of any kind and the small monthly fee is paid out of the pocket of the site owner. The management team is unpaid.

Having provided the above facts, I will specifically state that we are not an "Astroturf" group and Mr Glazov will find no evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for publishing this reply,
Julene Haack (member of management team, Just Grounds)











Sunday, August 21, 2011

Green Jobs mean job losses

Previously TCS blog has written that green jobs actually mean less jobs See LINK. Today the New York Times reports:
Clean technology is the next wave of innovation that Silicon Valley needs to capture,” the mayor said, noting that the San Jose City Council had committed to increasing the number of “green jobs” in the city to 25,000 by 2022. San Jose currently has 4,350 such jobs, according to city officials.
But SolFocus assembles its solar panels in China, and the new San Jose headquarters employs just 90 people.
In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream."
I won’t say I’m not frustrated,” said Van Jones, an Oakland activist who served briefly as Mr. Obama’s green-jobs czar before resigning under fire after conservative critics said he had signed a petition accusing the Bush administration of deliberately allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a claim Mr. Jones denies.
A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.
Climate Change Consumer (C3) comments:
The notoriety of Obama's and the Democrat's green job fiasco is finally being picked up by the leading pulpit of green-leftism in the U.S. - the New York Times. The gullibility and idiocy represented by the article brings a certain level of schadenfreude as greenie/leftie/liberal cope with the obvious, yet continue to pursue a failed strategy they do excel at: wasting taxpayer monies.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Dr Art Raiche, Retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist - No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011





Dr Raiche repeats the Gillard question, who do you believe, CSIRO or Alan Jones?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune."

ASEG Gold Medal recipient in 2006, “For exceptional and highly significant distinguished contributions to the science and practice of geophysics…”

Principal scientists contractor to CSIRO in the geophysical Electromagnetic Modelling Group for exploration and environmental applications.

Dr Raiche talked of the days when the CSIRO was a world class organisation and worked for Australia, Agriculture and Industry.  Skip to 8mins into it for the best bits if you  haven’t got time, where he says:
The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)
In the 80′s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “Business like” and the doors were opened to “Management Consultation.”
Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.
You think that your tax dollars went towards research but a lot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games…. the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn’t learn one thing…
Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as Management approved of it.
We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.
We had now become a Government Enterprise. We were told by the Chairperson that we Scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO.
(Thanks to JOSKO for above comment and quote)

During his address, Dr Raiche talks of Clive Spash. Clive wrote a paper that was critical of the then proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. He thought a carbon dioxide tax was a better way to control CO2 emissions. See a report in The Australian. His paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed. Clive can be heard in an hour long address HERE.

Thanks to No Carbon Tax for the Video and post.

Address was at No Carbon Tax Rally, Canberra, 16 August 2011
Film by Phil Cole, edited and uploaded by Sean Morris, No Carbon Tax TV

Friday, August 19, 2011

Convoy has hit the road, so should Julia!

The Convoy of No Confidence will be remembered for generations, as we still remember the "COOEE March." The COOEE march of 1915 started as the "Gilgandra snowball" with 20 or so men and, gathering other recruits along the way, they numbered about 300 by the time they reached Sydney.

The Australian War Memorial records that:
Cooee March 1915.
Their example was soon followed by other marches from around New South Wales and Queensland: the Waratahs, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Dungarees, Men from Snowy River, Kurrajongs, Kookaburras, Central West Boomerangs and North Coast Boomerangs. They relied on the support of the communities they passed through, which was often enthusiastic. The total number of men involved was only about 1,500 but the marches attracted wide publicity and may have encouraged fund-raising and enlistment more generally.
Almost 100 years later, the Convoy(s) of No Confidence have built up in a similar way. Truck Driver and Trucking Fleet owner Mick Pattel had his business halved by the ill-thought out Gillard Green Government's decision to halt live exports on the basis of a suspect report shown by OUR? ABC.

On Social Network, Just Grounds online, the idea blossomed and ballooned. The number of convoys were organised from all points of the Australian compass.  The reasons to protest were added to: Live Exports; No Carbon Tax; Illegal immigrants; Government Waste and failed projects.

Organisers like "Just a housewife" Cate Stuart from Queensland St George area organised routes and stop-over details etc and the massive snakes have started winding their way to Canberra.

From the Northern Territory with Brilliant organiser Rashida Khan
Rashida Khan
(ABC report)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-18/truckies-protest-carbon-tax-export-ban/2845416 
and from The Katherine Times:
A Convoy of more than 100 vehicles - including road trains, campervans and utes - rolled into Katherine last night to show their support for the Convoy of no Confidence, a convoy heading to Canberra to raise a voice against recent government decisions.
Rashida Khan, who led a trail of vehicles from Darwin to Katherine yesterday, said she was on her way to Canberra to speak up for "some of the toughest people" she knows, who "have been pushed to the edge by the decision to ban live export".
"And I don't know how much further you can push these people," Ms Khan said.
"It is time to make Australia and the government aware of what is happening to the people who were used to work from sunrise to sunset to muster their cattle, to breed for live export, to truck their animals across the country."

From Perth: No-confidence convoy leaves Perth
The Thompsons
Trucks and camper vans left Belmont this morning, marking the start of the Perth leg of the national Convoy of No Confidence.
The convoy, which is due to join another 10 other convoys from around the nation in Canberra on Monday, is adorned in orange streamers and balloons and will pass through Norseman late this afternoon.
The main organisers of the Perth convoy, Narrogin beef farmers Matt and Janet Thompson, said they were delighted by the turnout and the support from those who had turned out to see them off.

From Cairns:

Convoy of protest leaves Cairns to tell PM Gillard to hit the road.

THEY are everyday people, they are angry and they are hoping to bring down a government. Hundreds of Far Northerners left Cairns yesterday bound for Canberra.

The Convoy of No Confidence started as a truckies protest against the carbon tax but has grown into a mass assembly of people who feel they have lost their voice on issues from wasted tax money, asylum seekers, pink batts, imported fruit and the temporary ban on live exports. Leaving Atherton early yesterday more than 100 vehicles made their way to Cairns and Innisfail as they started the journey south.
From Rockhampton:

ROCKHAMPTON’S Tony Hopkins will lead a Convoy of No Confidence to Canberra next week.
He will be one of many leading the way to the nation’s capital for a two-day protest, following protests by others this week against the Federal Government’s carbon tax.
Rockhampton and Central Queenslanders heading south this weekend will be protesting with the message they no longer have confidence in the Federal Government, because of the carbon tax U-turn and the knee-jerk reaction on the treatment of cattle in Indonesia.
About 200 people have signed up to drive in a convoy, leaving Rockhampton tomorrow at 7am from the Yeppen roundabout, to join up with others from across the country to give the government that message.
Viv Forbes, of the Carbon Sense Coalition has written about the Convoy - pdf here

Joanne Nova has some great photos of the Perth Convoy HERE.

Journalist (and Justgroundonline member) John Mikkelsen has a new piece published on the ABC's DRUM UNLEASHED.


President Vaclav Klaus - The Mass Delusion of Climate Change


President Vaclav Klaus - The Mass Delusion of Climate Change from Institute of Public Affairs on Vimeo.

US States dismantling Green Energy Sector

From a report by Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation linked in title:
State governments are beginning to dismantle green energy sector, cutting green jobs as they focus on shale gas boom
The Corbett administration is de-emphasizing renewable energy and energy conservation, eliminating programs created by previous Democratic and Republican administrations as it focuses on natural gas energy from booming Marcellus Shale.
Quietly but systematically, the administration has all but shut down the state Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Energy and Technology Deployment -- the state's primary energy office -- and removed directors and reassigned staff in the Office of Energy Management in the Department of General Services and the Governor's Green Government Council.
It has also forbidden state executive agencies from signing contracts that support clean energy supply.

GWPF tells of a quote from Jan Jarrett, president and chief executive officer of Penn Future. "In the past 12 years, Pennsylvania has gone from having virtually no clean energy jobs to employing more than 106,000 Pennsylvanians in the clean energy industry, despite the national recession. These program cuts and legislative attacks threaten to kill those good, family-sustaining jobs."

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 14 August 2011
Pennsylvania is not the only state reassessing or reducing sustainable energy, energy conservation and renewables portfolio standards policy. Governors and legislators have voiced similar concerns in Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, according to the Pew Research Center.
Ms. Simeone, director of PennFuture's Energy Center and formerly the special assistant for energy and climate at DEP, said changes in policy priorities could be expected because the 2010 election resulted in widespread state government leadership changes, but it doesn't make sense to pull support from renewable and sustainable energy sources when the rest of the world is turning toward them.
"Around the world countries are realizing there needs to be a mix of fossil and sustainable energy and unless we continue to diversify we will be left in the dust," Ms. Simeone said.

 

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Rick Perry - the man to watch in the US Presidental Race

The Texas Star-Telegram reports:
(Texas) Gov. Rick Perry found himself at the center of attention again on Wednesday, this time after reiterating his skepticism over climate change and his belief that some scientists have manipulated data to keep the issue alive.
Two days after drawing fire for blunt comments regarding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Perry decried the global warming issue as "politicized" and questioned the science behind it while speaking at an event in New Hampshire.
Perry has been outspoken on the issue for years, but his comments are getting attention like never before now that he's a front-running Republican presidential candidate.
Newsmax.com reports:

Rick Perry Gets It on Global Warming

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's entrance into the GOP presidential primary has almost overnight deflated the prospects of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Perry’s skepticism of man-made global warming has been one of the key factors.

Perry rides into the presidential contest with a bold brand of global warming skepticism that is sure to ignite tea party enthusiasts and GOP primary voters. Perry told the Guardian that global warming is "one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight."


It would be wonderful for our cause if the next US President was a Sceptic (or in US spelling - Skeptic)
The UK betting agencies now have Governor Perry as favorite in the Rebublican race for the Presidency. The Campaigning has started in earnest. One agency has the following odds:

Rick Perry                    3/1
Mitt Romney                5/1
Michele Bachmann    10/1
Jon Huntsman              25/1
Sarah Palin                   20/1

It's early days yet and, if my memory serves me correctly, at this stage in the last Presidential Race for the Democrat Party Hillary Clinton was way in front.

The International Climate Science coalition's Tom Harris:

The other Sceptical candidate is Michele Bachmann. The infighting has started. The Houston Chronicle:

Rick Perry explains why he’s better than Michele Bachmann (with video)

So after some elbowing, our Shaky Hand Productions crew asked Gov. Rick Perry a direct question — and got a complete sentence response — Monday at the Iowa State Fair. The question: What makes you a better candidate than Rep. Michele Bachmann, who would be his chief rival for Iowa’s social conservative voters?
We asked Bachmann the same thing about a week earlier, but — as you remember — her press people literally put their hands over The Shaky Hand camera and physically blocked us from getting close to Bachmann. Now more reporters are complaining about similar treatment from Team Bachmann.

 

Gavin Schmidt, Galileo Movement and Lubos Motl









Gavin Schmidt





Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

He works on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate, using general circulation models (GCMs).

He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.[3](Wikipedia)




Luboš Motl (born December 5, 1973) is a Czech theoretical physicist who keeps a blog commenting on physics, global warming and politics
Luboš Motl

He received his master degree from the Charles University in Prague, and his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Rutgers University and has been a Harvard Junior Fellow (2001–2004) and assistant professor (2004–2007) at Harvard University.
On Luboš' blog, the Reference Frame (link in title) he comments on Gavin's "fight against" the Galileo Movement's booklet - Science in a nutshell.

If Luboš is to be believed ( and TCS blog, for one believes and trusts him) then Gavin Schmidt is either a complete scientific buffoon or worse, a denier of the truth, trying to uphold the falsified AGW hypothesis.

Here is just one example. For an enlightening read go to the Reference Frame and read the whole post and don't miss the comments.
GM - Galileo Movement
GS - Gavin Schmidt
LM - Luboš Motl

GM: In every 85,000 molecules of air, just 33 are CO2. For every 33 molecules of CO2, 32 are from Nature and known to be essential to all life on Earth. How can one molecule of the same gas produced by humans be blamed for supposed imminent, irreversible, catastrophic global warming? It cannot.

GS: False.

Two hundred years ago, only 24 of those molecules would have been CO2. Today, 33 molecules are – a 40 percent rise of a key greenhouse gas.

The reference to "one molecule" is misleading: By talking ratios, the Galileo Movement obscures the staggering amount of carbon dioxide society has pumped into the air. In the last two centuries, society has dumped 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. It added another 110 billion tons via deforestation and land-use changes.

The atmosphere weighs about 5 quadrillion tons, and carbon dioxide, despite our emissions, remains a small component of that. But it grows larger every year. The International Energy Agency expects annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels alone to top 40 billion tons a year by 2030.

The math gets complicated from here, but there is an enormous quantity of molecules in those 330 billon tons of CO2.
LM: The statement by the Galileo Movement is obviously right, totally accurate, and immensely important for this whole discussion.

It just says that 33 molecules among 85,000 - not sure why this number was chosen (I guess that it was 100,000 to start with but they wanted the final small numbers to agree with something else) - are CO2 molecules and none of these CO2 molecules can individually be identified as "harmful". In fact, when you ask each molecule how they got into the atmosphere the last time they did, 32 of them will reply that they got to the atmosphere from natural sources.

This small percentage of the "fresh man-made molecules" boils down to something we discussed at the beginning - the man-made CO2 emissions are just a small portion of the annual CO2 budget. Schmidt is right that the total number would be close to 24 and not 33 or 32 molecules if there had been no industrial activity. But that doesn't mean that there's anything inaccurate about the statement by the Galileo Movement.

You may say that 24 molecules would be there regardless of the humans - you can't say which ones among the 33 molecules, of course. They're identical to each other. 1 molecule was added by humans during the last loop of the carbon cycle. And what about the remaining 33-25=8 molecules? They were added by Nature during the most recent cycle but Nature wouldn't be able to add them if men didn't previously get them to the circulation.

In this sense, you might call the recently emitted 1 molecule a "recent stimulus package" and the remaining 8 molecules are "results of Nature's activity that boils down to the historical stimulus packages in the past". At any rate, the main point is that the CO2 molecules that have been added to the system in the past have been recycled dozens of times and became a standard part of the cycle of Nature. That's what Nature does with any molecules, especially the totally inherent and like-like molecules such as CO2 that have been driving life for billions of years.

These 8 molecules are the same molecules - in principle, totally indistinguishable - as the 24 natural molecules. So you can't even say which one is which. There is no physical experiment that would distinguish the 24 "totally natural molecules" from the 8 "natural now but man-made in the past" molecules or 1 "recently man-made molecule". (There might be heavier isotopes and their percentage in different sources may differ but biochemical processes don't distinguish the isotopes and all of them are ultimately mixed with everyone else.) If you admit that the 24 molecules are very important and beneficial for the plant life, you must admit that we have increased the happiness of the plants on Earth by 40%, while causing no disadvantages for anyone else.

The alleged disadvantage that the climate fearmongers made up - the temperature - would actually also be an advantage. But more importantly, its magnitude is totally tiny. In the language of economists, it's an externality but its value is much smaller than the value of the "internalities" that are never talked about because they're inconvenient (even though they decide about 99+ percent of the key quantities).

Just try to imagine that you're a plant. And you are offered this deal: your food happiness may increase by 40% - because the amount of CO2 will grow by this figure - but you may dislike the temperature change that is connected with this deal with may be about 0.6 °C of warming (and I am generously assuming that all temperature change in the last 100 years is due to human activity). Will you accept the offer? You bet. Half a degree in either direction is totally irrelevant in comparison with a 40% increase of your food supply. (And I am generously overlooking that the warming would be good for almost any plant, too.)

As some children already know, plants are important even for those people who prefer meat because the meat comes from animals that either ate some plants :-) or they ate other animals that [....] and ultimately the final animals eat plants which is why everyone depends on CO2. Some children even call this insight "food chain".

The idea that there is something wrong about our addition of the CO2 molecules just doesn't add up. It's complete rubbish. What propagandistic articles such as Schmidt's tirade in SciAm want to achieve is something that can't really be achieved: they want all the people to abandon all of their common sense and 99% of their knowledge of science and mindlessly repeat some cherry-picked 1% of science factoids, add 100 times larger pile of myths to this scientific core, and convince themselves that these cherry-picked factoids as well as myths are important for their lives - or the life on Earth - even though they are demonstrably not important.

The Galileo Movement must be applauded for producing a booklet that actually and accurately explains many more key scientific points about the CO2 and temperature dynamics than all the movies ever shot by the climate alarmists combined.



The Truth about Greenhouse Gases

Photo: Princeton University
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He is a member of the (Global Warming Policy Foundation) GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. In February 2009 Happer testified before Congress, "I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind", for among other reasons because of its beneficial effects on plant growth. Along with other notables, Happer led[6] the 2009 petition [7] to the American Physical Society to change its position statement on climate change.

His latest publication is called the truth about Greenhouse Gases. (pdf here)

GWPF's Dr Benny Peiser reports:
London, 17 August - The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes an outstanding briefing paper by the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University (USA).

In his paper The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, Professor Happer criticises the misguided scare-mongering about CO2 emissions as well as the habitual exaggeration of the likely impact and risks posed by global warming. He particularly laments the co-option of climate science by governments.

Happer discusses what he calls the "contemporary moral epidemic" of climate alarmism: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet and advocates a sober and balanced assessment based on empirical observations, not computer models.

"CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet. Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet," Happer writes.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Climate Alarmists cause panic in Local Governments.

Central Coast Resident looking for his house.
A link in the title will take the reader to many reports in my (Geoff Brown's) local paper.
A series of stories  with alarmist sea level rise predictions
In the last mention report, The Minister for Human Services said that our region (the Central Coast of NSW) faces the worst sea level rises.
Ms Plibersek said. “The science shows us that the Central Coast faces the highest risk of inundation from sea level rise in NSW. The Federal Government is taking action to tackle dangerous climate change and move Australia towards a clean energy future while supporting jobs and providing assistance to households and pensioners.”
When confronted by 2GB's Ben Fordham, Tanya couldn't remember saying that the Central Coast faced the worst risk (HERE) Funny, as Ben pointed out, it was included in her press release.

However, the Alarmists are not just scaring our local community, their scares are Australia wide and indeed worldwide. From USA Today:
In Chula Vista, Calif., new waterfront buildings will be required to have higher foundations because of an expected rise in sea levels.
In Chicago, where flooding is predicted to worsen, residents can get rebates for putting rain barrels, compost bins and native plants in their yards.
And in New York City, where rising tides are also projected, wastewater treatment plants will elevate their pumps.
Norfolk, Va., is doing a feasibility study on measures such as dam structures to deal with the area's 14.5-inch rise in sea level over the past 80 years — whatever the cause. "The city is trying to be as proactive as possible without engaging in the hyperbole of climate change arguments," says John White, the city's engineer for storm-water systems.
New York City is not only planting a million trees, it also has a $1.5 billion, 20-year plan for green infrastructure to help manage storm-water runoff from increasingly powerful storms.
Is there cause for alarm?  Well, although the 2007 IPCC's 4AR says, for the 21st Century, the sea level ris will be
  • in a low scenario[9] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
  • in a high scenario[10] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
In Professor Bob Carter's "Climate: The Counter Consensus:"


No scientific basis for global-warming related sea-level alarm.
There elementary facts about sea-level change have been taught to university first year science classes
around the world for generations, yet the still seem to elude today's politicians and their advisors. For, also around the world, governments, councils and planning authorities are ignoring the reality of local sea-level changes altogether  and instead using the IPCC's speculative projections for future global sea-level as the basis for coastal planning regulations that effectively confiscate property rights and diminish property values.

    a new paper by Phil Watson published in the Journal of Coastal Research shows that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing. The IPCC sea level rise predictions are based on modeled temperature rise over this century of between 1.1ºC and  6.4ºC.

    Wes Allen, in his excellent book "The Weather Makers Re-Examined" writes:
    Coastal flooding from rising seas has always been global warming's biggest bogeyman. And that threat has been diminishing. The first IPCC report in 1990 projected a maximum possible sea level rise this century of 100cm; in 1995 it was 94cm; in 2001 it was 88cm and in 2007 it was just 59cm. And it may well be closer to that IPCC report's minimum projection of 18cm.

    However, a new paper - Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613 - show that the models are based on a false premise.

    Another New paper -
    Richard S. Lindzen1  and Yong-Sang Choi2
    1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
    2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
    Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
    However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).

    This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2