Todd Myers writing for the National Center for Political Analysis exposes the myths associated with "green" jobs. (LINK)
He exams teams of people pedaling pushbikes to generate electricity.
Pedaling ten hours a day on a stationary bike, each person can
generate 1 kWh. Investing $1 million in bicycle generators and paying
people the going rate for the energy they create, we could create 1,610
jobs. There is another benefit: these are not part time jobs. These are
full-time jobs for an entire year, unlike many of the temporary jobs
often included in “green” jobs calculations.
He suggests that we can create more farm jobs by banning tractors.
Think of all the jobs we’d create for farm workers!
Of course, the cost of farm products would rise dramatically, making
it more difficult to buy food, especially for low-income families. But
do we want to create jobs or not?!
But back to the pedal generators:
If you’ve done the math by now, you may have figured out that I am
paying my green-energy producing bike riders only 10 cents a day – the
average rate for generating one kWh of electricity in America. So, let’s
pay them $10 a hour. The cost per kWh would rise from 10 cents to
$1,000. This might make it more difficult for manufacturers to buy the
electricity, but it hardly seems fair to demand our bike riders earn
less than a living wage, and wealthy investors like Warren Buffet can
certainly afford to pay a bit more for electricity.
This blog has previously written that the oceans are alkaline, not acidic.
Image: National Geographic
Letter from The Olympian (link)by Ken Schlichte, an expert forest soil scientist in western Washington
EPA's efforts will have no effect
Oceans are not acidic, despite the front-page headline, “EPA tackles acidic oceans.”
Oceans are actually alkaline with a surface pH of around 8.1.
The article with this headline stated that the EPA is
exploring whether to use the Clean Water Act to control greenhouse gas
emissions because climate change legislation is stalled in Congress. The
Washington Department of Ecology had originally been asked to use the
Clean Water Act to regulate emissions, but stated that there wasn’t
enough data about acidification of specific bodies of water to justify
any such listings.
The serious concern being used by the EPA to justify its
control of greenhouse gas emissions is the up-welling of deep ocean
water along the West Coast by northwest summer winds. This deep ocean
water is alkaline, but is somewhat less alkaline than the surface ocean
water because it is colder and therefore contains more dissolved carbon
dioxide.
The deep ocean water up-welling along the West Coast may not
been have exposed at the ocean surface for centuries and the EPA efforts
to control current greenhouse gas emissions will therefore have no
effect on the pH of this deep ocean water for many years. These EPA
efforts will also have no effect on the northwest winds and the ocean
up-welling that they will continue to create along the West Coast.
KEN SCHLICHTE, Tumwater
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/16/1208139/missing-headline-for-16olets.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
Gary Meyers has considerably overstated the confidence that can be placed in climate data, their interpretation, and their use in predicting future climate (Real climate data speaks for itself, Letters 27/6). This is not to belittle the work of ‘tens of thousands of dedicated people who have collected the data’. The fact is that there are limitations on the precision and accuracy of the data.
The global temperature record back to the 1850s, as constructed from observations using instruments, contains regular changes to the standards for instrument exposure, changes to the instruments themselves, changes in location, and changes in the environment surrounding the instrument sites. The summation of these changes is that the record is not as accurate as it is purported to be.
Nevertheless, the warming documented in the instrument supports a view of Earth having warmed over the past century and a half. The interesting point is that although Earth has warmed and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased since 1900 the changes have not been synchronous. The warming of the period 1910-40 was not in conjunction with significant carbon dioxide increase and the post World War II increase in carbon dioxide was not accompanied by temperature increase until about 1975. Thereafter the rapid increase in carbon dioxide was accompanied by temperature rise but at only about the same rate as the 1910-40 period. For the past 15 years the temperature has not increased despite the continuing increase in carbon dioxide.
The comparison with computer models is equally tendentious. The model performance through the 20th century is tuned by changing the impact of atmospheric aerosols, for which even the IPCC agrees there is only a low level of understanding.
If one takes a truly critical stance the data and current models give little confidence to predicting future climate change.
William Kininmonth
Kew, Vic William Robert Kininmonth is a retired Australian meteorologist noted
for his frequent writings on the topic of climate change.
Settled science? No such thing
Bob Carter, The Australian, June 27, 2012 (See also HERE)
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a branch of the UN that advises governments on the topic of global warming allegedly caused by human greenhouse emissions.
Contrary to common assumption, the IPCC does not deal with the wider topic of climate change in general. And neither is it the role of the scientists who advise the IPCC to conduct new research as such (though some, incidentally, do ).
Rather, the IPCC's task is to summarise the established science as represented in the published scientific literature.
On February 3, 2010, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, commenting in The Hindu on the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, said: "Everybody thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and nothing could go wrong."
By "gold standard", Pachauri was referring to the IPCC's oft-made claim that the scientific literature on climate change it surveyed was only that published in peer-reviewed professional research papers.
Interestingly, Albert Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer reviewed. It is therefore quite clear peer review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epoch-making, scientific research.
Peer review is a technique of quality control for scientific papers that emerged slowly through the 20th century, achieving a dominant influence in science after World War II.
The process works like this: a potential scientific author conducts research, writes a paper on their results and submits the paper to a professional journal in the relevant specialist field of science.
The editor of the journal then scan-reads the paper. Based on their knowledge of the contents of the paper, and of the activities of other scientists in the same research field, the editor selects (usually) two people, termed referees, to whom he sends the draft manuscript of the paper for review.
Referees, who are unpaid, differ in the amount of time and effortthey devote to their task of review. At one extreme a referee will criticise and correct a paper in detail, including making comments on the scientific content. At the other extreme, a referee may merely skim-read a paper, ignoring obvious mistakes in writing style or grammar, and make some general comments to the editor about its scientific accuracy or otherwise.
Generally neither type of referee, nor those in between, check the original data, or the detailed statistical calculations (or, today, complex computer modelling) that often form the kernel of a piece of modern scientific research.
Each referee recommends whether the paper should be published (usually with corrections) or rejected, the editor making the final decision.
In essence, traditional peer review is a technique of editorial quality control, and that a scientific paper has been peer reviewed is absolutely no guarantee the science it portrays is correct.
Indeed, it is the nature of scientific research that nearly all scientific papers are followed by later emendation, or reinterpretation, in the light of new discoveries or understanding.
A case in point is the recent paper by University of Melbourne researcher Joelle Gergis and co-authors that claimed to establish the existence of a southern hemisphere temperature "hockey stick". Now, the authors have rapidly withdrawn the study after fundamental criticisms of it appeared on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and elsewhere.
The Gergis paper differs in kind from many other IPCC-related studies by establishment climate research groups only in that the tendentious science it contains has been rapidly exposed as flawed. This exemplifies how the role of nurturing strong and independent peer review has now passed from the editors of journals to experts in the blogosphere, and especially so for papers concerned with perceived environmental problems such as global warming.
Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as "settled science", peer reviewed or otherwise. During the latter part of the 20th century, Western governments started channelling large amounts of research money into favoured scientific fields, prime among which has been global warming research.
This money has a corrupting influence, not least on the peer-review process.
Many scientific journals, including prestigious ones, are captured by insider groups of leading researchers in particular fields. In such cases, editors deliberately select their referees from scientists who work in the same field and share similar views.
The "climategate" email leak in 2009 revealed this cancerous process is at an advanced stage of development in climate science. A worldwide network of leading climate researchers was revealed to be actively influencing editors and referees to approve for publication only research that supported the IPCC's alarmist view of global warming and to prevent the publication of alternative views.
Backed by this malfeasant system, leading researchers who support the IPCC's red-hot view of climate change endlessly promulgate their alarmist recommendations as "based only upon peer-reviewed research papers", as if this were some guarantee of quality or accuracy.
Peer review, of course, guarantees neither. What matters is not whether a scientific idea or article is peer reviewed, but whether the science described accords with empirical evidence.
So what about the IPCC's much-trumpeted, claimed "gold standard" of only using peer-reviewed papers? It is completely exposed by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, who showed an amazing 30 per cent of the articles cited in the definitive Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC were from non-peer-reviewed sources, including student theses and environmental lobbyist reports.
The repetition of the "we only use peer-reviewed information" mantra that is so favoured by climate lobbyists and government-captive scientific organisations signals scientific immaturity.
It also indicates a lack of confidence or ability to assess the scientific arguments about dangerous global warming on their own merits and against the empirical evidence.
Professor Bob Carter is a palaeoclimatologist at James Cook University, Townsville and an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs.
Hollywood films have always been pro-man made global warming
[AGW], even before it became a cause
célèbreand even if this has not always been
made clear. The reason for this lack of clarity is that this position has been wrapped
up in other themes such as the soul-destroying quality of modern society
[Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis], to more recently the
reckless culpability of big business, particularly the fossil fuel and nuclear
industry companies [Silkwood, China Syndrome, Syriana, Erin Brockovitch, Atavar],
and the general purity of the natural lifestyle [Gorillas in the Mist, The
Emerald Forest].
Of course man’s meddling in nature always has dire
consequences including but not limited to the end of the world [The Day After
Tomorrow], being eaten by dinosaurs [Jurassic Park] and even being reprimanded
by aliens [The Day the Earth stood still, parts 1 and 11].
The connection between meddling and dire consequence began
in style with James Whale’s Frankenstein. But really the odds were always
stacked in favour of the bad result. After all, if you were making the perfect
human and usurping God/ nature’s handiwork would you make your alternative look
like Boris Karloff?
And to pile on the insult make the wife of the new man look
like Elsa
Lanchester with a skunk’s pelt for hair?
The only aesthetically pleasing monster in the Frankenstein
genre has been Warhol’s,
and that is hardly noticeable in the visceral grotesqueries of the proceedings.
All that can be said is that the filmic versions of
Frankenstein have visually conformed to Mary Shelley’s theme that man cannot be
perfected and any attempt to do so is a retrograde shift from even the natural
version.
The only exception is Ridley Scott’s earlier dalliance with
the Frankenstein lesson, the phantasmogorical Blade Runner. In this the photogenic
monsters include Rutger Hauer, Sean Young and Darryl Hannah. The only problem
is their life span is four years. So, the dilemma for Mr Hauer and his damsels
in distress face is that even if you are made a God it is only for the time a
moth enjoys. No wonder they were seriously angry. And, as usual, they wreaked
havoc on their misguided creators.
So, to the latest instalment of the Hollywood tradition of
supporting AGW; Ridley Scott’s second attempt at Frankenstein, Prometheus. This
time however, it is not so much Frankenstein as Frankenstein by proxy; the
arrogant usurpers of nature/God are humanity’s progenitors. And this time the
theme of AGW is clearly enunciated. The characters are bluntly told not to be
sceptics by the heroine, Noomi
Rapace, of fame from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
In Prometheus Ms Rapace has obviously undergone her own
apotheosis, having gained what looks to be about 10 kilos of muscle since her
previous films along with impressive abs. More importantly, in respect of the
Frankenstein theme she is a woman of faith who knows not to trifle with the
natural order of things.
The fact that Ms Rapace was initially mesmerised by the
creators of humanity is only a glitch as the movie progresses, and, as all
religious tests unfold, merely a means by which some impressive hardware is
destroyed and sundry acrobatic feats performed as the Rapace character has her
faith confirmed. In fact the Rapace character is the personification of the
blend of scientific nouse and capacity for faith which is required to deal with
profound existential realities such as gigantic, alien relatives, or AGW.
Despite Rapace’s epiphany the movie is a muddled affair. The
progenitors, after a highly spiritual beginning involving an act of sacrifice
set in magnificent natural surrounds, are revealed to be no more than über,
weapon dealing fascists.
That the progenitors are 3 meters tall, built like Arnold Schwarzenegger
on steroids, can tear the heads off indestructible androids and have space
faring technology rather begs the question as to why they would need new
biological weapons in the first place. Perhaps they are masochistic. Certainly
they are just as destructive as humans in respect of spilling CO2 over the
place. Much is made at the beginning of the film about levels of CO2 with
unfavourable comparisons between Earth and the progenitor’s planet. Concerned
utterances are made about 3% levels of CO2, with not one of the high powered
group of scientists apparently aware that the air they are exhaling contains
4-6% of the lethal gas.
In any event the evil alien Frankenstein’s, who have
identical DNA to the intrepid but conniving humans [perhaps that is why they
want to murder humanity, they have spawned stunted inferior copies of
themselves], are dispatched in the traditional way by their creations; only
this time it is humanity who are the destructive creations. Ironic, eh?
The heroine, who in the meantime has performed her own
caesarean, is left to prosecute her holy crusade against the rest of the
Frankensteins. She flies away in one impressive spaceship with nary a solar
panel in sight. The lesson has been learnt and reinforced; don’t mess with
nature.
Prometheus has made $225 million in 11 days so
there is plenty of money for a sequel, or even a series. Just like AGW.
The Alarmist ClimateGate CRU use GCMs - Global Climate Models - to make their fortune-telling future forecasts of climate. Their models constantly fail.
Perhaps they should pay more attention to John's Weather Forecasting Stone.
As most people are aware the Carbon Tax will commence from the beginning of July.
Without doubt this is most detested and unfair tax of any other tax before it.
We must have taxes of many forms to run our country and infrastructures, and we all accept our taxes as an ‘evil’ necessity, but the Carbon Tax is not there for that reason.
Before explaining, let’s look at the ‘reason’ the Labor government gives for imposing such a tax.
They say that if they impose a tax of $23.00 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, that it will force up the cost of electricity and make people reduce their consumption of electrical power.
This applies to Industry, commerce and domestic consumption of electricity. Forcing people to use less power and thus reduce the output from the thermal coal fired power stations, which in turn would use less coal and thus create less carbon dioxide.!!!
Also industry and commerce theoretically will reduce production because of the cost to them of the carbon tax, with the supposedly same result.
Obviously the idea came from the Greens who live in a make believe world, like middle earth, with the words ‘common sense and logic’ totally alien to them.
The facts are it will force the cost of everything up by as much as 20% from the flow on of various price increases in various industries.
But there will be NO reduction in power consumption, because electricity is essential to our homes, our jobs, our manufacturers, our industries.
Industry and manufacturers are not going to reduce production just because the cost of power has gone up 15% or more. That cost obviously will be passed on to you the consumer, who will pay the ultimate price.
Since 1993 power consumption has grown at approximately 4% per year without the slight influence from solar panels, wind generators or other ‘renewable’ energy sources.
Thermal power generation growth has increased 98% in that period and will continue to grow to meet the demands of our growing economy and industrial demands whether the carbon tax is there or not.
The carbon tax will achieve absolutely nothing except to put our money in the pockets of the Labor government who will then proceed to pass seven thousand million (seven billion) dollars a year on to the United Nation for them to give away to ‘third world’ countries as they wish.
Your money that could have been spent on roads, health, hospitals and many other urgently needed infrastructures. At the same time the deaths on our roads will continue to increase because the desperate need for money to repair them is being pirated away by this insane government.
All this carbon tax, hot rocks programmes, solar farms, wind generators, underground carbon dioxide storage, roofing insulation programmes and clean coal technology was supposedly intended to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Every one of them is a miserable failure and the carbon tax is an obvious raping of our economy.
The hot rocks programme collapsed, literally, and has been shut down.
The roofing insulation programme was an unbelievable waste and a massive disaster with billions of dollars wasted.
The underground carbon dioxide storage is a total failure with nearly sixty percent of the power generated being used to pump the carbon dioxide underground.
The clean coal technology programme is another complete failure with many billions of dollars of Queenslanders money wasted and the company operating it going bankrupt.
With billions of dollars spent, the solar farms and wind generators have generated (not so called capacity) less than 1.5% of our total power.
Excluding Hydro power at 4.6%, which has been in operation fully since 1974.
Not only has our carbon dioxide emissions in Australia NOT reduced, nor will it, but also after some thirty five years the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has NOT fallen one gram.
Let me ask you six questions (and please no cheating) if you don’t know just write what you think it is.
What percentage is the total carbon dioxide of our atmosphere.
What percentage of that is supposedly ‘man made’ carbon dioxide.
What is 97% of the World's ‘greenhouse’ gases.
What percentage of the world’s man made gases does Australia emit.
If the Labor government reduced our annual emissions by 20% (which is impossible) what percentage difference would this make to the world’s carbon dioxide level.
Over the past fifty years how much has the World’s carbon dioxide increased per year.
A1 - Total percentage is point zero three eight of one percent i.e. .038%
A2 - 3.4% or .038 x 3.4% = .00129 of one percent of total atmosphere. Over total time.
A3 - Moisture, as in clouds. Without this ‘Greenhouse’ gas there would be no life on earth as we know it because there would be no rivers, lakes or rain.
A4 -
1.5%
or as a percentage .00001935 of one percent !!!
A5 - One fifth of the above or . 0000039 of ONE PERCENT..
A6- CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at .00008 of ONE percent per year.
After looking at these figures it is very clear what a scam and deliberate lie man made climate change and the carbon tax is. But the alarmists, the Greens, the U.N. and others have made billions of dollars by deceiving the world with their lies.
Carbon
Dioxide itself is a harmless gas that we breathe in at 400 ppm and out at 1000
parts per million and is essential to all forms of plant growth.
Its
ability to absorb or deflect heat is little different to many other gases.
It is
now proven that carbon dioxide increases lag behind global temperature
increases by 800 years.
In 2012
the Kyoto treaty is due for resigning but not one of the major countries will
be signing it.The U.K. stated clearly
they can no longer afford to waste money on “renewable energy’ which is proving
to be a total failure. The USA, Brazil, South Africa, China, India, France,
Russia, and many other countries have turned their backs on the so called Man
made climate change. All saying they can no longer afford to waste any more of
their economies (some that are in recession, like the U.K.) on the renewable
energy ideology.
Not
only has it severely damaged their economies but has also left many,
desperately short of electrical power. Ironically, they were being rescued by
those countries that retained and expanded their thermal and nuclear energy
programmes.
The
only success out of all these programmes is the home solar panel installations,
if they are installed at the right
price. They have absolutely no effect on national power demand being a teaspoon
in a two hundred litre drum but have helped reduced many domestic power bills.
The
power of the future; Both
the USA and Australia have enough coal at present usage and sales to last for
the next 380 years. That is not counting coal deposits yet to be located, so we
will be using thermal coal and gas power for a long time yet.
The
power of the future most likely will be the new LFTR fourth generation nuclear
power plants.
TheLiquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors that are non
radio active and will consume all their fuel with no by products and are able
to consume theby products from older
radio active plutonium reactors.
Solar
farms and Wind generators will never play a major role in power generation as
their output is far to low and unreliable and is expensive to install and
operate for the power generated.
Also on
a smaller capacity scale both tidal and wave action power generation holds
promise for the future but would never have a major input.
Australia
belongs to all true Australians and as such anything above or below the ground
belongs to us too. As such, any mining of coal, iron ore, gas, oil, timber,
etc. should pay a royalty that is fair and reasonable to both sides. That way
we all share the wealth.
But the
Carbon Tax punishes and robs the wrong people to satisfy the greed of a
government that will do anything to get money to satisfy their needs and their
Green cohorts in crime.
It
would be wonderful to have cheap power available to us all, but apart from home
solar panels (after they have paid for themselves) it is not possible.
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. For a previous post by Terry, go to LINK
A new peer reviewed paper examined by CO2 science.
The Canadian researchers,Moazami-Goudarzi and Colman, found in a study of two green marine algaethat there were no significant differences in growth rates over a range of reduced pH values. From Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology - (LINK)
Background
From pre-industrial times to the present, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration has risen well in excess of 100 ppm, leading to a drop of 0.1 pH unit in earth's seawater, while anticipated CO2
increases to the end of the current century are suggestive of a further
drop of 0.3-0.5 pH unit, according to Caldeira and Wickett (2003,
2005). So what do these projections portend for the productivity of the
world's marine algae?
What was done
In a study of two such green marine algae (Stichococcus cylindricus and Stichococcus minor), Moazami-Goudarzi and Colman measured their growth rates while growing them in artificial seawater - as per Berges et al.
(2001) - within 125-ml Erlenmeyer flasks at pH values of 5.0, 6.0, 7.0,
8.2, 9.0 and 9.5, as well as at a variety of salinity levels (25, 50,
100, 200 and 470 mM).
What it means
With Moazami-Goudarzi and Colman determining that S. minor and S. cylindricus
"were able to tolerate a broad range of pH from pH 5.0 to 9.5," as well
as the broad range of salinities they investigated, it would appear
that even the worst nightmare of the world's climate alarmists
would not be a great impediment to the continued wellbeing of these two
green marine algae, even without the positive influence of evolutionary
forces that would likely come into play over the timespan involved in
the seawater transformations envisioned by Caldeira and Wickett.
Reference
Moazami-Goudarzi, M. and Colman, B. 2012. Changes in carbon uptake
mechanisms in two green marine algae by reduced seawater pH. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology413: 94-99.
The Nation Review's blog has an opinion piece on a similar theme, Oil, Gas and coal provide energy that works, energy that lifts people out of poverty:-
The expensive U.N. gabfest and
attempted power grab known as Rio+20 finally collapsed. Two days before
Rio+20 ended in disarray, CFACT held a press conference to explain why
failure was the best, the only, the most decent option for rich and poor
countries alike.
“Failure in Rio would be good for the world’s poor,” ClimateDepot.com
director Marc Morano said. “Failure is the only option if you truly
care about the environment or poor people. Carbon-based energy has been
one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of the planet.”
Even the great environmentalist James Lovelock agrees. “Sustainable development is meaningless drivel,” he said recently.
“Real sustainability is oil, gas, and coal,” Morano added. “It is energy that works, energy that lifts people out of poverty.”
Previously, NCTCS blog posted a letter from Dr Gordon Fulks under the heading - Sacked Without Sense (link) about the dismissal by Oregon State University of Professor Nick Drapela.
Nicholas Drapela, an Oregon State University faculty member and vocal critic of climate change, was fired without explanation from his job, KVAL reports.
On May 29, Drapela received a call in his office from the department
chair, who read him a prepared statement and informed Drapela that he
would need to return his office key.
The university did not inform Drapela why he was being fired. His requests for such an explanation have all been denied, according to The Daily Caller
-- raising speculation that we was fired due to his controversial view
that climate change is not a man-made phenomenon....
Gillard is involved because she helped Wilson set up bank accounts which
he used for his schemes, but Gillard insists she acted lawfully, did
not know what Wilson was doing with those accounts, and did not profit
from them. She was “young and naive”, she has said, being only in her
mid 30s and the partner of law firm Slater and Gordon.
Certainly. The
Prime Minister's office said that they should look at what people did in
their younger days. I imagine that means that under their guidelines we
can ask serious questions about what people did in their mid-30s, when
they were a partner at Slater and Gordon. One would presume that a
person who has been made a partner in Slater and Gordon was a person of
some competency. I presume that Slater and Gordon know enough about the
law not to appoint imbeciles or fools but are appointing people who are
capable.
In Victorian Parliament, on 12 October 1995, the Minister for Industry and Employment said:
I
understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered
by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing.
What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been
discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the
union's solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.
I am informed that Ms Gillard is no
longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate
candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at
Slater and Gordon.
.....another article, from the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 30 July 1996, by Murray Hogarth:
Between
1992 and 1995, about $370,000 flowed through two Perth-based accounts -
operated in the name of the "AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc" -
which, until last month, had never been heard of in the AWU's national
offices in Sydney.
We have to find out who set these accounts up.
We have to find out whether the person
who set these accounts up had told the Australian Workers Union that
they were setting up these accounts. We have to find minutes to prove
that the accounts that were being set up were under the instruction and
the auspices of the Australian Workers Union and not set up outside. Any
competent solicitor would start asking those questions. So who is
setting these up? What is the purpose of these accounts? What is the
source of these funds? What is the application of these funds? That is
what a person who was competent would ask. Most certainly it is what a
partner of a law firm would ask. They would definitely be the questions
that a partner of a law firm would ask, especially if they were the ones
drawing up the accounts.
Speaking in Parliament on Thursday, (former attorney-general, Robert) McClelland revived memories of
old allegations of union corruption involving Gillard's former partner,
Bruce Wilson. The pair lived together in Melbourne in Gillard's
pre-parliamentary career when she was a labour lawyer with Slater &
Gordon and Wilson was Victorian secretary of the Australian Workers
Union.
Speaking of the need to strengthen protections against
union corruption such as the case of the Health Services Union,
McClelland referred repeatedly to the allegations against Wilson
Gillard's then-partner was accused in the Victorian
Parliament in 2001 of misappropriating about $500,000 of union money,
including $102,000 spent on home renovations. Gillard has repeatedly
denied benefiting from the money and rejected any other involvement.
Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when
she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the
Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such
things as her personal home renovations and dresses.
Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000
plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part
was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare
Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money
was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and
Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers
Union.
Our Prime Minister set up accounts that allegedly siphoned off union funds to her then lover. She has responded that she (34 and a partner in a law firm) was young and naive.
Does the Labor Party care about the misuse of funds of Union members?
Should we rely on computer models or examine real world data? Well, according to a study by a team from the Norwegian Polar Institute and released by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and published in Geophysical Research Letters, the models have been shown to be (surprise, surprise!) wrong.
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the
eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time -
and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is
being lost at all.
From the AGU Press release:
From the “seal data”, the scientists accumulated enough knowledge
concerning the area’s water circulation and how it changes over the
seasons to construct the most complete picture of what and how the
Fimbul Ice Shelf is melting from the bottom up.
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models
without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the
water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf.
This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf
is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an
overall loss of mass. The model results were in contrast to the
available data from satellite observations, which are supported by the
new measurements.
Received 27 March 2012;
accepted 25 May 2012.
Citation: Hattermann, T., O. A. Nøst, J. M. Lilly, and L. H. Smedsrud
(2012),
Two years of oceanic observations below the Fimbul Ice Shelf, Antarctica,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
doi:10.1029/2012GL051012, in press.
For 20 years we have been subjected to the tyranny of the "Earth Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro which took place from 3-13 June 1992. Since then we have been subjected to a World dictatorship where we have been forced to conserve, skimp and save, stop building power stations, invest in uneconomic windmills, save whales rather than people and endure a whole rasp of unnecessary, expensive restrictions of our lives. Ordinary weather has been replaced by "climate change" where everything is blamed on our main energy sources coal and oil, and we have even restricted hydro dams and nuclear power. All in a mad rush to achieve the impossible goal of "sustainability". We have all been cringing at the further restrictions on our lives implied by the latest bonanza, the 20th Anniversary Conference in Rio de Janeiro which has now ended. We can now breathe a sigh of relief, not that it is all over, but that it is on its way down, to be hopefully replaced. eventually by the common sense which used to keep us going.
I have devoted over 20 years trying to undo the harm of the last "Summit" and I cannot match the comment on the latest one which has now been published by my friend and colleague in global protest, Lord Christopher Monckton, so here is his report.,
MAD GIG
To the Gaia-worshipers in Rio, all is symbolic of the new religion
From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Rio de Janeiro
Symbolism! Dontcha just love it? Even the three-letter abbreviations for the world’s airports convey a resonant message for the goofy Gaia-worshipers here in Rio de Janeiro for the conference on “sustainable development” (whatever that may mean). Flights still follow the old colonial patterns, so it is easier to fly to Rio (GIG) from Madrid (MAD) than from London. Entertainingly, the bag-tag on my suitcase (see above) bore the legend MAD GIG –a deftly synoptic description of the leftfest on Brazil’s once-fashionable coast.
The intended triumph of the new religion over the old was symbolized by a light-emitting diode system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that has turned the normal floodlighting of the towering statue of Christ the Redeemer an unpleasant, lurid green, so that He looks like a giant jelly-bean. Fortunately, Divine intervention (or perhaps the Gore effect) has smothered the volcanic pinnacle on which the statue stands in unseasonably dense cloud and pouring rain, rendering this crude but costly sacrilege altogether invisible. Chalk up ten points to the old religion. God is not mocked.
Soldiers with sub-machine-guns and – for some reason – elephant guns are guarding this extravagantly expensive and contemptibly childish propaganda gesture to make sure no one symbolically reasserts the triumph of the Resurrection by cutting off the unnatural green glow and replacing it with the traditional, glorious white.
The rubbish that litters the streets and even the once-pristine beaches of Copacabana and Ipanema is surely a symbol for the garbage that will soon emerge from the negotiations. One can be confident that it will be garbage, because this year, for the first time, the UN has gone to unprecedented lengths to make sure that no one gets daily-updated versions of the central negotiating text. If somebody hides something, it is because somebody has something to hide.
In a maneuver symbolic of the intended global dictatorship that is the ever-more-openly declared ambition of the world-government wannabes of the UN and of a governing class that has grown impatient of democracy and contemptuous of the mere people, the supposedly “transparent” pointy-heads’ conference has been ruthlessly divided into three entirely separate pointy-heads’ conferences.
First, symbolic of the grim Communism that will be the ideological mainspring of the exciting, shiny, new dictatorship for which the UN longs, and for which its senior strategists planned at a meeting this time last year at which Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called for suggestions to put an end to national sovereignty (and hence to democracy), the exhibition area which in earlier UN conferences was adjacent to the main hall where the plenary negotiating sessions took place was set up several miles away in a tent city revealingly called the “People’s Congress”.
Secondly, as a symbol of the permanent imprisonment of just about everybody that Ban Ki-Moon’s corrupt, totalitarian world government will bring about, the non-government organizations accredited to the UN were corralled in the filthy, soulless, crumbling Rio Centro conference center, where hundreds of armed, sharp-suited UN goons kept them determinedly away from the vast concrete bunker where the actual negotiations were taking place.
Thirdly, to symbolize the total separation of the governing class from the governed that will become the norm as the UN takes power, the governmental delegates, traveling in a thousand-strong fleet of gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting limousines escorted by secret police on Harley-clone motorcycles, have been kept in near-total isolation from the non-government organizations and from the mere people.
“Secondary passes” allowing limited access to the plenary sessions are handed out only to those whom the UN can absolutely rely upon not to raise any questions at all about what is going on. The world’s mainstream news media have access, of course: these days they can be trusted to treat all the works of the UN with incurious, unquestioning, head-banging acquiescence.
After I had dined with a direct descendant of the Emperor of Brazil at a fashionable restaurant a couple of nights ago, a cavalcade (or cortege) drew up at the porte-cochere. First came a clattering Harley clone; then two SUVs full of UN goons; then a black VIP limo containing the dictator of Rwanda and his minders, then several more wagonloads of goons, then two more motor-cycles. One of the goons quite unnecessarily shoved me aside with a curse, symbolic of the New World Order where They give the orders and we get pushed around. Fortunately I can hit back. I shall cross the dictator off my Christmas-card list. So there.
So, what are They up to at this conference? The pre-conference draft of the negotiating text contained all the usual meaningless drivel about “sustainable development”, women’s rights and gender equality, rights of indigenous people to enjoy racial discrimination in their favor (there were several baffled Red Indians (er, sorry, “Native Americans”) wearing traditional feathered headdresses stumbling around the drafty concrete chambers of the conference center), the need to cut the world’s population down to size, and other traditional demands of the hard Left.
One of a series of badly-drawn but prominently-displayed posters by propagandized children showed the Sun dressed as a doctor diagnosing the Earth’s disease: “I’m afraid you’ve got humans.” In the UK it is illegal to indoctrinate children in this way, which is how we were able to defeat Al Gore in the High Court five years ago on the ground that his sci-fi comedy horror movie was political propaganda and not science.
So why the obsessive secrecy? Why are the national negotiators kept away from the non-government organizations that have always had access to them until now? Why are the updated negotiating texts not made available? One reason stands out. The UN knows perfectly well that if the people knew what was being inserted into the generally anodyne negotiating text they would not stand for it.
An example. Last year, at the Durban climate conference, I obtained a copy of the negotiating text, summarized it, and posted up the summary at WattsUpWithThat. A couple of days later WordPress, which hosts half a million blog postings every day, got in touch to say that that posting had attracted more hits than any other that day. Why were people so interested? Because not one of the thousands of journalists in Durban had bothered to report what was actually in the negotiating text.
My report revealed that the climate conference was proposing to grant Mother Earth the right to sue any Western nation in a new International Climate Court, and to cut CO2 concentration by half, extinguishing most plant and animal species on Earth. The disastrous publicity arising from these revelations led the UN to abandon fully half of the Durban negotiating text within 24 hours of my revealing its contents.
The UN was determined not to suffer this humiliation again. So it has ensured that the pre-conference draft contains so little of interest that even Greenpeace has condemned the UN for not going far enough. Instead, all the really damaging material has been kept secret. No doubt it will be inserted into the text during the negotiations. It will then be presented as a fait accompli after the usual all-night session, and the world’s media will dutifully congratulate the negotiators on a job well done.
A senior UN official to whom I spoke said that the organization had now become so corrupt that a number of sexual and financial scandals had occurred at the headquarters building in New York. The UN, he said, was hushing them up by not reporting them to the police authorities in New York as protocol demanded. He said that the revelation of the contents of the updated Durban negotiating texts had led to a major rethink within the UN, which had decided to set up the elaborate pantomime that I have described, preventing any but a carefully-selected few from getting alongside the negotiators.
“Transparency?” he snorted. “Not under Ban Ki-Moon. Everything is now hidden – and the UN has a great deal to hide. But don’t quote my name – these people are vindictive.”
As I said at a press conference here, the UN has outlived its usefulness and should now be brought to an end. Everything it does could be better done, at far less political and financial cost, by individual nations cutting out the predatory UN middlemen.
The UN has had its day. Time to abolish it, in an act symbolic of the freedom and democracy that we, the people, intend to keep for ourselves whether the dictators-in-waiting and their fawning lickspittles in the mainstream news media like it or not.
Share and Enjoy:
__._,_.___
.
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so."
Josh Billings
Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.
This year we have seen the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock, realise that the alarmists' position was untenable.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought
we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included –
because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The
climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really
happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the
millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has
stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon
dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added. (msnbc link)
He was followed by a former hero of the environment movement, Fritz Varenholt publishing a book "highly critical of the global warming consensus." Fritz examined the "science" after reading Andrew Montford's book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory.
Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to
reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the
IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report
was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with
errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These
developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this
report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.
Good practice requires double-checking the facts. After all, geoscientists
have checked the pre-industrial climate, over the past 10,000 years: this
isolates natural climate drivers. According to the IPCC, natural factors
hardly play any role in today's climate so we would expect a rather flat and
boring climate history.
Far from it: real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean
or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than
1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These
include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period
2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago,
Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice
Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations
occurred before man-made CO2.
The meeting was never intended to reach a binding agreement, but the
deal it did reach was so watered down that many activists and some
ministers were openly questioning whether it was worth the massive
effort of bringing 45,381 participants and almost 100 world leaders to
Brazil.
The agreement committed to develop the new sustainable
development goals for both developed and developing countries, but did
not specify what themes they should cover.
FANRPAN(Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network) chair Sindiso Ngwenya of Zambia gave an incisive
presentation, pointing out that agriculture is the key to reducing
poverty and ensuring food security in Africa. “We call upon the world to
assist us,” he said, “not by treating us as beggars, but by treating us
as equals.”
Ngwenya criticised many First World attempts to use climate change,
biodiversity and sustainable development arguments to prevent African
agriculture from advancing. “If you are using implements that were there
before Christ, how much chance do you have?” he wanted to know.
The Australian government claims that next month's tax on carbon dioxide cannot be blamed for today's soaring costs of living.
This tax, however, is just their latest assault in the decades-long war on carbon that is already inflating the cost of everything.
For at least a decade, power companies have been obliged to source 10-15% of their power at inflated prices from costly and unreliable sources like wind and solar. And for every wind or solar plant built, a duplicate backup gas facility is needed, increasing the demand and price for backup gas, hitting other gas consumers. Moreover, the threat of more carbon taxes has deterred the construction of efficient new coal-burning power plants. Rising electricity costs feed into the cost of everything from public transport to building materials.
The climatists are also responsible for numerous policies pushing up the price of food. These include the ethanol/biofuel madness, the restrictions on the fishing industry, the Kyoto scrub clearing bans, the spread of carbon-credit forests over farming and grazing land, the never ending war on irrigators, and the virtual ban on building new water-supply dams.
Then we have all the hidden costs of the climate industry. Thousands of our smartest graduates are lured into well-paid dead-end desk jobs in the overheads industry devoted to climate red tape, while real entrepreneurs are unable to find workers to develop our continent of under-utilised resources. There is an overpaid bureaucracy devoted to climate "research", alternate energy, international junkets, Kyoto give-aways, and administration, auditing, enforcement, accounting, law and propaganda for their empire of climate taxes and subsidies.
Finally we have income tax implications from all the money being flung around to bribe people to accept their carbon tax? Every Australian will get these bills somewhere, sometime. And who pays for the hundreds of millions poured down subsidy rat-holes like carbon capture, solar panels, pink bats and the IPCC?
Australia's crippling carbon tax is but the latest symptom of the costly Climate Madness infecting the well-fed elite of the western world.
When the consumers of Australia realise the extent to which they have been conned and needlessly pauperised, the electoral retribution will be swift.
Firstly, a tax is a compulsory levy on production, consumption, income or expenditure.
A price is the amount voluntarily offered, paid or received for real goods or services.
Therefore the "Price on Carbon" is a tax.
Secondly, carbon is a solid element rarely found isolated in nature. Diamonds and graphite are examples. Carbon is usually combined with other elements forming coal, oil, gas, plants, animals and all foods they eat.
Any form of carbon when burnt or digested produces a colourless harmless natural gaseous plant food called carbon dioxide. This gas is what they will tax.
Therefore what is being imposed on Australia is not a "price on carbon", it is a "tax on carbon dioxide".
Both deceptions are deliberate. What is the Commissioner for Deceptive Advertising doing?
Sawmills to Save the Planet?
Climate alarmists demand that we fill the land with forests in order to combat global warming.
That is not a sustainable policy.
Trees only extract carbon dioxide while they are growing strongly. Once the forest is choc-a-bloc with mature trees, there is no net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees, branches and leaves fall and decay, others replace them.
For carbon-extraction forestry to be sustainable, the trees must be logged, milled and put into long-term storage by conversion into poles and posts, beams and girders, floors and furniture, slabs and sleepers. These will lock up the carbon for decades, even hundreds of years, by which time the climate will have moved on naturally and the green hysteria will be shrieking about something else.
With good forest management, loggers and millers will rejuvenate the forest, produce valuable timber products and restore our once-great forestry industry – creating a real green industry out of a green subsidy industry.
Moreover, if forests are planted around coal-burning power stations, the trees will grow faster in the plant-friendly carbon dioxide being produced by the power plant.
Using sawmills to lock up carbon is much more sensible than the zero-benefit high-cost schemes to pump carbon dioxide underground.
Species Extinction is Nothing New
As the global warming bubble deflates, another scare is being inflated – species extinction. Naturally the professional alarmists present this as a brand new threat, but with the same old guilty party – western industry.
However, species extinction, like climate change, is the way of the world. Those environmental groups who exaggerate the extent of modern extinctions are just illustrating their ignorance of the history of species extinctions on Earth.
It was not carbon dioxide that entombed millions of mammoths, rhinos and other animals in mucky ice from Iceland to Alaska. It was not steam engines that wiped out the dinosaurs and 75% of other species who had dominated the Earth for 180 million years. There were no humans to blame for the Great Permian Extinction when over 90% of all life on Earth was destroyed – animals, plants, trees, fish, plankton even algae disappeared suddenly. And it was not European settlers who wiped out the dinosaurs, diprotodonts, giant kangaroos and other mega-fauna that once roamed outback Australia.
Sadly, history shows that it is the destiny of most species to be destroyed by periodic natural calamities or competition from other species. Earth's history is a moving picture, not a still life. No species has an assured place on Earth. Some species can adapt and survive – those unable to adapt are removed from the gene pool.
Earth's periodic species extinctions are usually associated with widespread glaciation, volcanism, earth movements and solar disruptions. Most geological eras have closed with such calamitous events. Random and more localised species extinctions are caused by rogue comets. But global warming and abundant carbon dioxide have never featured as causes of mass extinctions.
Because of Earth's long turbulent history, most species surviving today are not "fragile". Every one of them, including humans, is descended from a long line of survivors going back to the beginnings of life on Earth. And because of the adaptability of life, the Earth today supports more species than ever before.
Man has thrived because of his adaptability, resourcefulness and more recently, his use of science and technology. We cannot now return to a cave-man or hunter-gatherer existence. Without the freedom to explore, develop and utilise our land oceans and minerals, most humans would not survive.
Species extinction events are not new, are not caused by burning carbon fuels, and will probably occur again. We will need all of our freedom, ingenuity, technology and reliable energy resources to survive.
Let us not hasten our own species extinction by starving ourselves of food and energy with foolish demonization of carbon, the natural building block of all life forms."
The Role of Natural changes in solar radiation and its effects on clouds and global temperature.
More Green Jobs Created – in China
In August 2011, SILEX Solar, the only solar panel manufacturer in Australia, underwent restructuring and stopped producing photovoltaic cells at its Olympic Park facility, outsourcing the work to China. In November 2011, it suspended its manufacturing operations and fired the majority of its staff.
This was the latest UN Talk-fest that has morphed from "Global Warming", to "Climate Change" to "Sustainable Development" and now "Species Extinction". Naturally they all got there on sailing clippers and bicycles, and spend their nights camped out, drinking natural river water, and roasting local pigeons on forked sticks over wood fires.
But don't trust them. Their decisions are hidden. Non-government delegates were not allowed to see their draft proposals that most politicians will sign.
Individual bookings are $176.00 (includes GST). Proceeds from this event will be donated to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Queensland.
The Carbon Tax Explained
The Galileo Movement is launching a Carbon Tax Poster Campaign to coincide with the introduction of the Carbon Tax.
The campaign will consist of distributing the poster below to shops and business in your local area and asking them to display it prominently in their windows or notice boards.
You can ask The Galileo Movement to post 1-5 copies to you or print them off yourself. To get involved or get more information send an email to: Galileomovement@gmail.com
The Last Word - Turn up the Heat on The Liberals too.
(or join the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics -ed)
We all know that Gillard and the Greens are imposing this carbon tax on us. But the Liberals are not blameless either. Unless we put the heat on them and on every candidate, they will not repeal the big hidden carbon tax "The Renewable Energy Targets". This sneaky tax is what is currently pushing up power costs and if pursued will eventually lead us into brownouts. A few Liberals and most Nationals understand that the whole Climate Tax Industry has no justification and must be repealed before irreversible damage is done. But Greg Hunt needs to be replaced in the Environment portfolio and Malcolm Turnbull must be kept out of any portfolio involving energy or the environment.
They all need to know that opposition to this massive stupidity will never cease.
Please help us spread the word.
Authorised by:
Viv Forbes
“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia. info@carbon-sense.com
