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

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Gross Green Garbage Growth Going... Going....

Monckton exposes Greens
The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party is a Centre Right Party rallying against the Green Movement that morphed out of the old Soviet Communism movement (back-up link)

Even Labor people recognise the extremism of the greens: (link)
In recent days, NSW Labor secretary Sam Dastyari has been saying the Greens policies are "bordering on loony" while AWU boss Paul Howes likened the party to "extremists who threaten our democracy".
As respected ABC Political Analyst Antony Green has written:

Greens Preference Communists

....The Greens in the South Australian Port Adelaide by-election to give a second preference to the communist candidate...
Lord Christopher Monckton is in Australia to expose the falsified man-made global warming hoax.

He has previously exposed the world government agenda of the IPCC's Copenhagen conference and the communisation of the  green movement that morphed from the communists. (See video below.)

Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of the greenest of green bodies, Greenpeace: (link)
As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.
He then says that he learnt that the environmental movement was not guided by science - but neglected to say guided by a radical socialist agenda.  He went on to talk about the ban on adding chlorine to drinking water.
The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.
Greenpeace not only oppose chlorine chemisrty:
Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.
Dr Moore also exposed the myth that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a vital factor in growth of biomass, the stuff that feeds the billions:
Ecologist Dr. Moore pulled no punches in commenting on the new study: “These people are either completely naive about the relationship between CO2 and plants or they are making this up as a way of deflecting attention from the lack of warming for the past 15 years.” 
Another "God" of the Green Movement is James Lovelock. James re-invented the god of GAIA who/that Dr Tim "Mr Flim-Flam Man" Flannery grabbed with both hands. (LINK) James gave an interview revealing that he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
Lovelock also  blasted Greens for treating global warming like a religion.
"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

Right! You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting essential to life carbon dioxide in the air. You should praise them for increasing the essential CO2.

 Janet Albrechsen has written that Greens are losing voters as their agenda is exposed
 These people are not harmless idealists. They are not even genuine environmentalists. They are dangerous ideologues driven not by reason or intellectual debate, but by zealotry.
Now that we are in (Semi) Election mode, don't waste your senate vote. The Labor Party have introduced the Tax on innocent Carbon Dioxide.

The coalition have a policy that will cost voters $3.2 billion: (link)
In stark contrast to Labor, the Coalition’s Direct Action ($3.2 Billion) Plan is a practical, affordable (?) and effective way to reduce emissions and to improve the environment without harming the economy.
Carbon Dioxide is innocent. The increase in carbon dioxide has corresponded in an increase in biomass, ie in world food supplies for man and beast. (Link)  However the increase in carbon dioxide has NOT contributed to global warming.



Below is the video -Published on Apr 21, 2012
 
When did Earth Day begin?  Lord Christopher Monckton speaks on the Arena with Michael Coren.



Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Climate Trap - Alarmists and "deniers" take note.

Photo: Hanser Verlag
Pierre Gosselin of NoTricksZone has written two posts  (link1 and link 2) re a new book by IPCC lead author - climatologist Professor Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss entitled Die Klima Falle (The Climate Trap.)

On the blog Die Klimazwiebel (The Climate Onion)  by Werner Kraus:
Die Klimagipfel scheitern und bleiben folgenlos, während die Emissionen immer stärker steigen. Der Klimaforscher Hans von Storch und der Ethnologe Werner Krauß erklären, wie wir in dieser Klimafalle gelandet sind.
(The climate conferences have ended in failure and achieved no consequences, even though emissions continue rising. Climate scientist Hans von Storch and cultural scientist Werner Krauss explain how we ended up in this climate trap.)
Pierre Gosselin writes:
This is neither a skeptic nor an alarmist book. In it von Storch and Krauss have plenty of harsh criticism for both sides of the debate, and then some. Both sides, they claim, are responsible for having driven the climate issue into the ground. The book, they say, explains how climate science got there in the first place, and what possibilities are left to get climate sciences back on track so that it can produce productive action.
Some quotes translated by Pierre:
  • After the unprecedented success story of climate change becoming an object of public attention and concern, climate policy and the accompanying climate debate have wound up in a dead end.
  • Together with climate politics, the climate sciences have ended up in a credibility crisis.
  • The climate debate is stuck in the mud, the credibility of climate scientists has been cast into doubt, and the policymakers’ ability to act on the issue of climate is minimal. We are sitting in the climate trap. 
In Pierre's second post he records the reaction to the announcement of the book:
Reimar Lüst, former president of the Max Planck Society here:
This is an unusual and provocative book. A natural scientist and a cultural scientist have written it together. Hopefully it will annoy both the climate deniers and the climate alarmists within their insular circles.”
If it indeed annoys the alarmists, which I’m sure it will, then very few “deniers” will be annoyed at all by it. We can take criticism.

Frankenstein Fatal Foods

NCTCS blog has written many times about the scientists of the ClimateGate CRU and how they have demonised science byfalsely labelling carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Now we find that the scientists behind GM food are introducing a killer virus.

From the UK Mail-on-Line:

Uncovered, the 'toxic' gene hiding in GM crops:

  • EU watchdog reveals approval for GM foods fails to identify poisonous gene
  • 54 of the 86 GM plants approved contain the dangerous gene
  • Gene found in food for farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs
  • Biotech supporters argue there is no evidence that GM foods are harmful
A new study has been carried out by the European Union's official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA) which revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.
The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics
It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.
They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as 'Gene VI'.
Some of these crops are fed to  farm animals that produce milk meat and eggs which can result in producing proteins that toxic to humans.
Critics say the revelations make clear that the GM approvals process, which has been in place for 20 years, is fatally flawed. 

They argue the only correct response is to recall all of the crops and food products involved. Director of the campaigning group, GM Freeze, Pete Riley, said the discovery of the gene, 'totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise and predictable'.
He said: 'This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe. 'Authorisation for these crops must be suspended immediately, and they should be withdrawn from sale, until a full and extended review of their safety has been carried out.'

Read more: MailOnLine

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Carbon Tax hits businesses.

 The Green Gillard government's unnecessary tax on vital-to-life carbon dioxide is starting to hit businesses. The Australian Industry Group (AIG) has release a report:
Business impact of carbon tax - the first six months (Strictly embargoed for media publication until 29 January)  (pdf)

The Australian Industry Group has long considered that market-based approaches to the reduction of Australia’s contribution to greenhouse gas emission are most likely to meet national objectives at least cost. At the same time we have a number of concerns about the design and implementation of the carbon tax. We are particularly concerned about the initial fixed prices, which are high by international standards. This imposes an additional cost burden on Australian business at a time when local and global conditions are highly challenging due to a variety of other factors. Recent developments in the local and global economies and in international carbon markets show that our concerns were well-founded and remain valid.
The survey goes on to detail the fact that the tax on carbon (dioxide) has 
  • increased energy costs by 14.5%;
  • increased input costs in a many businesses;
  • increased input costs for manufacturing businesses by 61%;
  • 91 per cent of these manufacturers said electricity retailers had raised prices to cover carbon costs, while 81 per cent said gas retailers have raised prices to cover carbon costs;
  • Nearly 60 per cent of this group indicated they had also experienced significant carbon-related price increases on other key business inputs.  
The Sydney Daily Telegraph investigated
AIG chief executive Innes Willox said the impact of the carbon tax on "niche groups" such as food manufacturers is "probably greater than anticipated".
NCTCS blog is surprised that Food Manufacturers are considered a "niche group" by AIG. Surely food is almost as vital to life as the carbon dioxide that the Green Gillard Government insists on taxing.
But with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott promising to axe the tax if he wins office, some said the carbon tax is not as bad as they first feared. 
Maybe the opposition intends to axe the tax but they have indicated that they would be signatories to Kyoto 2 Protocol (link) and  they have a Direct Action plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions which will needlessly cost the nation $3.2 Billion. The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS) party are standing against any useless waste of taxpayers' funds on unnecessary carbon schemes.
NSW service station operator Craig Glasby expected it would add 15 per cent to his energy costs but now estimates the carbon tax will add about 11 per cent.
Mr Glasby, who also operates a Foodworks supermarket from the Central Coast, said he has introduced low-wattage lighting and other "green" appliances to try and lower his energy costs
But he has also put up his prices in order to try and recoup additional charges of about $850 a month
"I still think it's an impost that we should not have to pay."
The Telegraph also detailed the pain of another business man:
Another small business owner, Greg Northrop, estimated his company power bill had increased by $120,000 a year to almost $700,000.

"We put out a letter to our customers and told them about the carbon tax effect and we were told quite clearly they were not going to accept price increases," Mr Northrop, who runs electrical cabling manufacturer Tycab Australia on Melbourne's outstkirts, said.

"Our biggest competitors are Chinese companies, who are already benefiting from the high Australian dollar and the devaluation of their currency.
All that pain for how much gain? According to Dr Joanne Nova (link) in a piece subtitled "Welcome to Futility island."
if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we could save … 15 thousandths of one degree of warming (0.0154 °C) by 2050. Spiffy eh?
No, not Spiffy, Jo! A tragic unnecessary impost on Australian businesses and in fact all Australians who eat food or use energy.

H/t  Denise S

Monday, January 28, 2013

ABC and Fairfax Warning on Warming - It's over!

Just after the Green Gillard Government repeal
the tax on vital-to-life carbon dioxide.
The UK Met Office has admitted that the warming has stalled. (See LINK and LINK)

Now, As Pierre Gosselin reports on his NoTricksZone, the German Alarmist Der Spiegel has finally admitted "that global warming has ended, at least for the time being."
Yesterday (18/1) Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called:Klimawandel: Forscher rätseln über Stillstand bei Erderwärmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).
We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?
Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):
15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.”
Now, will Australia expect some honesty on reporting of the falsified man-made global warming hoax from the alarmists advocates ABC and Fairfax media? Will Ben comes from his Cubby House and face reality?

Will Australia's part-time Panasonic Climate Commissioner Tim "It'll never rain again" Flannery explain the current floods?  Will the Green Gillard Government close down theDepartment of Climate Change?

Lord Monckton - He's back

Lord Christopher Monckton started his 2011 addresses at the Wesley Centre in Sydney with:

I'm Back.


Now, in 2013 He's back again.

Below is Christopher's 2011 Wesley Centre address. There is a Lord Monckton Tour 2013 link in the bar above and that will have all tour dates and venues once confirmed.

Don't miss this dynamic speaker.


Saturday, January 26, 2013

Obama's exceptionally flimsy case for Global Warming.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama tried to steer clear of the global warming  (non)-issue. However during his second inauguration address, he called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.”
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
James Taylor, in an opinion piece for Forbes, addressed these last three points.
President Obama, I agree we should strongly consider the overwhelming judgment of science. Let’s apply the overwhelming judgment of science to your three cherry-picked examples and see what the science reveals.

Leading off the Obama “Big Three” is wildfires. What does the overwhelming judgment of science reveal
The National Interagency Fire Center reports the number of annual wildfires in the United States has been declining for more than 30 years. In fact, the “overwhelming judgment of science” reveals the number of wildfires rose from the 1950s through the 1970s, as global temperatures declined, and has been declining ever since, as global temperatures have modestly warmed.
 Cross fire off the list. What about crippling drought?
U.S. and global soil moisture improved throughout the 20th century as our planet warmed in its recovery from the Little Ice Age. According to the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank, global soil moisture increased throughout the 20th century at almost all sites. Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that 20th century droughts were quite mild when compared to droughts in previous centuries. This “overwhelming scientific judgment of science” was confirmed in November when a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature found “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”
Two down, one to go. Powerful Storms. Surely the US suffered from Superstorm Sandy?
Finally, the President asserts that global warming is causing more powerful storms. This assertion is particularly fictitious. NOAA reports a long-term decline in strong tornadoes striking the United States. The National Hurricane Center reports that the past 40 years have seen the fewest major hurricane strikes since at least the mid-1800s. Even Hurricane Sandy reminds us that the U.S. Northeast has experienced only one major hurricane strike since 1960, but experienced six major hurricane strikes during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, when global temperatures were cooler.
James Taylor 3: Barack Obama Nil.

Read more from James Taylor in Forbes HERE.

No Warming for 16 years


Hadcrut3

Hadcrut4
Dr David Whitehouse, writing for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) argues that there has been no warming for 16 years and projecting from these figures the temperature in 2100 would only rise by around 1ºC.
The UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have released the data for December in their Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 global temperature datasets. This completes the data for 2012 and allows it to be placed into context with the preceding years.
Statistically there has been no change in the average annual temperature of the globe since 1997 meaning that the standstill is now 16 years. The latest five-year average of Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 data shows a decline for the first time.
After examining a little graph trickery, he moves on to temperature projection.
It is interesting to note that since the IPCC says anthropogenic influences on the climate dominate – post 1980 – the global temperature has risen by 0.3 – 0.4 degrees C in a third of a century. If this rate were sustained then by 2100 the global temperature would have risen by another 0.9 – 1.1 degrees C. This is much less than the much touted 2 degrees C safety limit. Of course many maintain that in the past 16 years natural climatic influences have been acting in the opposite direction to man-made global warming. They expect these influences to diminish and an average rate of warming of 0.2 degrees per decade to occur.

Friday, January 25, 2013

IPCC shown up AGAIN

Santa's Secret leak.
Cartoons by Josh
Canadian investigative journalist wrote a book exposing how much of previous IPCC assesment reports relied on studies by advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. She wrote her exposures in a book titled: The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world's top climate expert.

The book had 143 reviews on Amazon, 4/5 of the reviewers gave it five stars; reviews like -

  • Great Investigative Journalism!!
  • Its not about the science. Its the politics, stupid.
  • Stop The Madness Before We Bankrupt The World
  • Important Exposure of IPCC Conspiracy
  • IPCC is totally discredited.   
Before Christmas, she received three data sticks which she described as Santa's secret leak. (see here, here, and here.) Now, as Fox News reveals,  it's happening again.

Donna Laframboise
Critics are blasting a draft U.N. climate change report that combines studies by advocacy groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace alongside scientific research papers.

“You'd think that the IPCC would have learned its lesson, that it would have told its authors not to rely on these sorts of publications,” said Donna Laframboise, the head of nofrakkingconsensus.com, an investigative website skeptical of the scientific consensus on global warming.

“The report currently includes, amongst its list of references, nine separate publications produced wholly or in part by the WWF,” Laframboise told FoxNews.com.



Greenland 8ºC above present temperatures 130,000 years ago.

New peer reviewed paper published by Nature proposes that the surface temperature of the Greenland Ice Sheet during the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago peaked at 8±4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation.

Nature 493,  489–494    (24 January 2013)  doi:10.1038/nature11789
ReceivedAccepted 13 November 2012  Published online 23 January 2013

Nature continues:
Extracting a record of the Eemian was a challenge: the core’s lowest layers had been deformed and folded by the constant movement of the ice sheet. “Of course we had hoped for a purer record,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, a palaeoclimatologist at the University of Copenhagen who led the NEEM project. “But it is a fantastic record even so, and it does have all the information we needed to reliably reconstruct the Eemian climate and ice-sheet history.”

She and her colleagues painstakingly compared and synchronized the disturbed parts of their core, layer by layer, with other well-dated ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica to tease out the story. “I am very sure that we have got the picture right,” says Dahl-Jensen. 

The results confirm the warmth of the Eemian climate: ratios of oxygen and nitrogen isotopes in the core show that some 6,000 years after the onset of the Eemian, local temperatures reached about 8 °C above the present-day annual average of roughly −25 °C.
But the ice sheet at the NEEM site did not get much thinner than its present 2.5 kilometres, according to the air content in the core that the team correlated with elevation.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Green Gillard Government's tax on CO2 goes from BAD to Worse.


Image: Larry Pickering
Talk about a bunch of losers. Climate Hoax Minister Greg Combet decided that, after 2015, Australia would link their carbon dioxide tax to European Market:
Under the full arrangement businesses will be allowed to use carbon units from the Australian emissions trading scheme or the European Union Emissions Trading System for compliance under either system.
"Starting today, Australian liable entities can purchase EU allowances for future compliance in Australia," Mr Combet said. (link)
Greg (You're so wrong, Greg) Combet says that Australia will link to the European Scheme.

The Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hon Greg Combet MP, and the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Ms Connie Hedegaard announced today that Australia and Europe will be linking their emissions trading systems. (link)
And the price, Mr You're so Wrong?
 Mr Combet repeated he was confident of the Treasury modelling, which predicts a $29 a tonne carbon price in 2015/16.
But, in reality, the price has fallen to around 20% of that: (link)
THE European carbon market, which Australia has agreed to join, has been plunged into crisis with the price falling below E5 ($6.30) a tonne for the first time.
The European price is now less than a quarter of Australia's fixed carbon price and has lost 70 per cent of its value since mid-2011.
UPDATE:
Reuters:
Prices in the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on Thursday dropped to 2.81 euros a metric ton (1.1023 ton) after a vote in the European Parliament's energy and industry committee opposing a scheme known as "backloading" to support prices by extracting allowances from the market and reinjecting them later.
That's less than 10% of the Green Gillard Government and Mr Combet's $29 a tonne.

And here's another little bit of info for Mr You're so wrong Combet. The Mafia are involved in the European Reneable Energy Scheme.
“Uncle Vincenzo,” implored the businessman, Angelo Salvatore, using a term of affection for the alleged head of Sicily’s Gimbellina crime family, 79-year-old Vincenzo Funari. According to a transcript of their wiretapped conversation, Salvatore continued, “for the love of our sons, renewable energy is important. . . . it’s a business we can live on.”

The U.K. is the state where voters are more likely to call EU membership bad for their country.
And for quite awhile, Italian prosecutors say, they did. In an unfolding plot that is part “The Sopranos,” part “An Inconvenient Truth,” authorities swept across Sicily last month in the latest wave of sting operations revealing years of deep infiltration into the renewable energy sector by Italy’s rapidly modernizing crime families.
(Below sung to the tune of Da doo Ron Ron)    
 
Co            Mr. Combet says he thinks the evidence is clear
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong
He says it’s getting hotter year by year.
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.

He Says
As he grits his jaws
He Says that
Man’s the cause
He Says that
He'll change the laws
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.
I knew that he was thinking that he’d fool us all
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.
Which shows an amount of gall
You’re so wrong wrong, Greg, you’re so wrong, wrong.
 

Climate Crimes

Ulrich Eichmann
Dr Benny Peiser has reviewed a new film by  Ulrich Eichmann. From Herr Eichmann's blog we learn:
He is an ecologist and working professionally for over 20 years in conservation. From 1990 to 2007 he was with the WWF Austria and coordinated several campaigns against dam construction and destruction of nature. For several years he has led the Stop Ilisu Campaign and the NGO "ECA Watch Austria". He has a daughter and lives in Vienna.
Benny Peiser writes
These days, much is spoken and written about the destruction of our planet as a result of climate change. In his evocative film “Climate Crimes”, the Austrian filmmaker Ulrich Eichelmann who was an active member of WWF for 17 years and worked in conservation for decades, now documents that it is rather the reverse: he shows how many ecosystems, species, habitats and the cultural heritage too are threatened – but, as he sums up, “not by climate change, but by climate protection and the things done in its name.” It is predominantly hydropower and bioenergy projects that threaten to destroy precious areas of our planet’s nature.

That current climate policies harm conservation in many ways is nothing new, even if many do not want to admit it. However, no one so far has compiled the evidence as strongly and on a global scale as Eichelmann. His one-hour film, which is shown in several cinemas in Germany these days and also on Austrian television, is the result of two years of work that led his team to Brazil, Turkey, Iraq and to Indonesia, but also to the model country of climate protection, Germany, where crimes against nature are especially evident.  Read more HERE



A Threatened Life







Below, a trailer for Ulrich's Movie (in German) Einige beängstigend Bilder.


 


















Pierre Gosselin, reviewing the Movie in December
If you are one of the skeptics, much of the film probably will be familiar to you. But if you’re a devout environmentalist who has been reading and believing all the climate propaganda put out by “environmental” and “climate protection” groups and institutes, then you may want to have an ambulance ready outside the cinema. It might be really tough to take.

Be sure to bring your environmentalist friends to see this film. Their reaction will be most interesting as it will reveal if they are truly open to the truth. Face it, there’s a huge industrial lobby behind the “green” movement too.

Are Humans responsible for the increase in CO2?


AGW and CO2: Are humans responsible for the increase in CO2?

by Anthony Cox

==========================
The empirical evidence for an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the 20thC is fairly uncontroversial. The increase in CO2 levels began about 1850 when the Little Ice Age ended. The acceleration in CO2 levels began about 1900 when they were 280 parts per million [ppm] and have continued until they are now 394 ppm.

Until the 20thC records of atmospheric CO2 levels show a basically constant CO2 with variation as little as 10ppm over centuries. These past records are based on ice cores. The theory is that natural emissions of CO2 and sinks, or places where the CO2 is absorbed, were in equilibrium. This all changed when human emissions of CO2, ACO2, began.

The official viewpoint about why CO2 levels have increased over the 20thC is put forward by the EPA. The EPA makes a comparison with a bath-tub. They say prior to the increase in ACO2, natural emissions of CO2 were like water from the “spigot” going into the bath-tub and natural sinks were like the drain. The level of CO2 never changed because nature, like the bath-tub, was in balance. ACO2 upset this balance by being like a glass of water which was poured into the bath-tub and is responsible for the increase in CO2.

There are a number of problems with this official view. The first is the assumption that past CO2 levels were as unvarying as the ice cores suggest. The problems with the ice cores is they are subject to close-off fractionation, or leakage of gases from the gas trapped in the ice, because of ice pressure; this process is related to the kinetic diameter of the gas molecules not the collision diameter; something which confuses even experts who gave ice cores a clean bill of health as a proxy for past CO2 levels.

The result of close-off fractionation is that ice cores may underestimate past levels and fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, as Drake, Jaworowsky, Glassman and Segalstad have proposed.

Arguably the most reliable history of past CO2 levels is from plant stomata records as Figure 12 shows. Figure 12 indicates past levels of CO2 were almost at today’s levels as recently as 1550. In addition chemical analyses of CO2 levels in Figure 13 show CO2 levels higher than today in the early 1800’s.


If the stomata and chemical analysis records are right this would mean that the natural emissions and sinks, the spigot and drain of the system are not always in equilibrium. In turn this would throw doubt on the assumption that there was equilibrium between natural emissions and sinks at the beginning of the 20thC before ACO2 allegedly caused the increase in CO2.

Further doubt on this assumption of a natural equilibrium is contained in 2 recent papers.
The first is by Tom Quirk. Figure 1A from Quirk shows the ACO2 emissions with the increase in atmospheric CO2:
If the assumption about the equilibrium between natural emissions and CO2 and sinks was correct the increase in atmospheric CO2 would correlate with the ACO2 emissions since, according to the EPA, the increase in the CO2 is entirely due to that extra glass of ACO2 being added to the ’bath-tub’ or atmosphere. However there is no such correlation; and since we know what the ACO2 emissions are the lack of correlation between ACO2 and the increase in CO2 must mean there is no equilibrium between the natural emissions and sinks.

Quirk also shows the natural CO2 emissions and sinks are strongly correlated with changes in ENSO, the pattern of El Nino and La Nina episodes. There have been stronger warm ENSO periods since the LIA. Warmer ENSO periods would lead to higher sea surface temperatures. According to Henrys Law with warmer sea surface temperatures more natural CO2 would be emitted from the oceans into the atmosphere. This is one possible reason why natural CO2 has been contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Another reason is contained in the 2nd paper by Knorr which supported by the Gloor et al paper.
Knorr found the airborne fraction [AF] of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years. The AF is the % of ACO2 emissions which remain in the atmosphere contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. The constant AF found by Knorr was about 40%.
Figure 1 from Knorr illustrates this:

Knorr: Figure 1
Knorr describes Figure 1 as “Observed atmospheric CO2 increase derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line), and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (dotted thin line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line)”.


The 46% in fact was an estimate by Dr Knorr [as indicated in private correspondence] and should be 40% as the calculated amount of the constant AF. The graph shows that general atmospheric CO2 is increasing by much less than the amount of the ACO2 emissions. It is this which underpins the argument that ACO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2. That is, given the assumption that natural emissions and sinks were in equilibrium before ACO2 started to increase, the official position is now that the sinks have increased to absorb some of the increase in ACO2 but not all and that remainder of non-absorbed ACO2 is what is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.


Quirk and the stomata history has already shown that the assumption that natural CO2 emissions and sinks were in equilibrium is problematic. What the constant AF shows is that the increase in ACO2 and natural sinks does not explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. The AF does this because it is the ONLY amount of ACO2 available to increase the atmospheric CO2. The expanding sinks are absorbing about 60% of the increase in ACO2 but as Knorr’s figure 1 plainly shows atmospheric CO2 increase is expanding more than the remaining 40% of ACO2 left. This is shown by all the peaks above the thick dashed line. If the AF were graphed at its correct 40% it would be slightly lower than shown in Knorr’s graph. This is plainly shown in this graph based on the Mauna Loa measurements from 1959:

Graph by Ian Hill


Clearly the AF is predominantly below the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. This is reflected in a comparison between the slopes of the increase atmospheric CO2 which is 0.0575 and the AF which is 40% of the increase in ACO2, or 0.0447. That is, the AF is increasing LESS than the increase in atmospheric CO2. Even in those years when the increase falls below the AF it cannot be said that natural CO2 emissions are not contributing because of the lack of equilibrium between CO2 emissions and sinks.


The effect can be compared with the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 40% of all CO2 [as per the constant ACO2 AF] which is 100, so ACO2 is 40 and natural CO2 is 60; when all CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 40% will be 80 so natural CO2 will be 120, an increase of 60; at 300, ACO2 is 120, natural CO2 is 180 and so on; natural CO2 MUST be contributing to the increase in total CO2.


Man made global warming [AGW] is based on human emissions of CO2 disrupting the climate. The basic science supporting AGW has been shown to be defective. If it turns out that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2 then even further doubt is cast on the theory of AGW.

China Getting Greener - CO2 is good for you.


Over a quarter-century ago, Dr. Sherwood Idso stated in a small self-published book that if the airs CO2 content continued to rise, it would enhance plant growth and water use efficiency to the point that semi-arid lands not then suitable for cultivation could be brought into profitable production and that the deserts themselves could blossom as the rose. How is this prediction standing today?
 
Sherwood's son Craig Idso of CO2 Science:

Real World observations of ever increasing productivity throughout China. Net Primary Productivity increased in water limited regions. Net Primary Productivity of China’s vegetation will increase with the global increase of atmospheric CO2.

Support sound science.Tell the world’s radical environmentalists that carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor a major source of global warming.

No imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

Team of Ex-NASA Scientists Concludes No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A group of 20 ex-NASA scientists have concluded that the science used to support the man-made climate change hypothesis is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic climate change forecasts.
Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth's atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.
The team of renowned space scientist include many with Ph.Ds are "dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories."  The TRCS team runs three websites:
From CO2 is Green
Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?
Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
From Plants Need CO2
Earth and its inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:

  • More Plant Growth
  • Plants need less water
  • More food per acre
  • More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer.  Without it - No Life On Earth!      
From The Right Climate Stuff

Apollo Era NASA Retirees publish new report.


The science is not settled!!

  1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.
  2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.
  3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.


H/t Marc Morano's Climate Depot