Posted by: Grant | August 21, 2011

Catchup 2 – Old Posts From Bigblog Site

Next UK King In Revolutionary Leftist Politics.

Friday 11 February, 2011 – 10:54 by Grant in Default

views (64)

Yes, to advocate the severe rationing of fossil fuels in a prosperous society based entirely on cheap abundant oil, coal, and natural gas in the absence of any demonstrated viable alternatives (except nuclear) IS revolutionary.

The lack of any serious opposition from the UK Conservative party to the Alarmist AGW theory is too blame for this. The leftists conned them. Conned them beautifully.

Thursday 10 February 2011
Prince of Wales: climate change sceptics ‘playing a reckless game of roulette’

Is Chas really telling this newly elected US Congressman that he is “playing a reckless game of roulette“? – or perhaps the Monarchy is planning on getting back into politics. The divine right of kings. Your ancestors got rid of King George, congressman, watch out for King Charles, the Greenie.

‘Healthy Skeptic’ on Climate Change Promises Hearings by Science Subcommittee
by Jeffrey Mervis on 9 February 2011, 10:00 AM

“The House of Representatives science committee’s panel on basic research and education plans to hold hearings on climate change to present more views on the topic, says its new chair, freshman Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL).
Brooks, a lawyer and veteran elected state and county official from Huntsville whose district includes NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, leapt over more senior members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to head the panel that oversees research activities at the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce. He says that he hasn’t seen “anything that convinces me” global warming is real, much less caused by human activity. And he’s more than a little skeptical about the motives of those urging the U.S. government and the rest of the world to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
“I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.” … ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Stern Review Trashed – Again

Friday 11 February, 2011 – 10:51 by Grant in Default

views (71)

The Stern Review was brought out  to create the Alarmist imperative that we must ACT NOW, not just adapt to any climate change that may come along.
It was laughed at in academic circles at the time, but the M. S. Media were on a populist roll and didn’t want to damage their cute pet pop doomsday theory.

Now, many years later, two World Bank papers have surfaced.

Roger Pielke JR BLOG
08 February 2011
Two New World Bank Papers on Climate Extremes

I note the World Bank have pulled the PDF link on one of these. Nice work roger.

Roger, wilco, over and out.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

It’s A Tax, Ma’am, Just A Tax.

Thursday 10 February, 2011 – 08:16 by Grant in Default

views (472)

It started as an emission trading scheme, but the market collapsed and the parliament rejected it, then it morphed into a Renewable Energy Target, but they couldn’t find any renewable enrgy that worked, except nuclear, so they have now resorted to the fall-back, generic, put-a-price-on-carbon position.

The Price-on-carbon is obviously never going to have any detectable effect at all, except to raise money for the government. If it waddles like a tax and it quacks like a tax… ?

Greg Combet is looking more and more like Comical Ali as the Greens resort to the Causes-all-the-bad-weather theory, despite the lack of any science for it, and in the face of a now cooling Globe.

Now this excellent, detailed, analysis by a highly qualified american professor makes a mockery of the tokenistic targets themselves.

08 February 2011
Reality Check

“The image above comes from a report issued today by the Australian government on its projected carbon dioxide emissions compared to various targets for emissions reductions (here in PDF).  The gap between projection and targets is stark.  The report asserts:

The Australian Government has reiterated its intention to introduce a carbon price in Australia to reduce emissions and meet the 2020 target.
What would it take for Australia to meet the least ambitious of these targets?  I answer this question in a recent paper:… ”

” … The [proposed] Cloncurry Solar Thermal Power Plant in Queensland is expected to provide 10 MW of electricity when completed (Renewable Energy Development, 2008). One quad (at 33% efficiency) of energy implies 3333 Cloncurry plants. Providing 3.8 quads implies 12,667 Cloncurry equivalent plants, or about 24 such plants coming online every week from 2010 to 2020….

…What this sensitivity analysis clearly indicates is that under a wide range of scenarios Australia would need to undertake a herculean effort comparable to the level of effort required to build and put into service dozens or more nuclear power plants by 2020 or thousands of solar thermal plants. Were this ‘‘level of effort’’ to be expressed in terms of windmills or other existing technologies the magnitude would be equally as daunting. When coupled with very aggressive efficiency and renewable objectives the level of effort is still enormous. Australia, of course, has no nuclear power plants, and the technology is hotly debated, so even building one plant would be an enormous achievement…. ”

Find the Paper Itself here
An evaluation of the targets and timetables of proposed
Australian emissions reduction policies
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave., UCB 488, Boulder, CO 80309-0488,
United States

Like I said, if it waddles like a tax and it quacks like a tax and it swims like a tax, then it probably is a tax.
Not only a tax, but an excellent excuse for some leftist social engineering as well!

The Planet itself remains totally oblivious.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Arctic Ice – NOT

Thursday 10 February, 2011 – 08:11 by Grant in Default

views (120)

Unlike the Argo Floats, The-Hole-In-The-Ozone, Global fuel consumption and the Antarctic Ice, the Arctic ice has always behaved itself well for Greenies – until 2007 that is – oops – another one bites the dust.

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 26% Over The Last Three Years
Posted on February 8, 2011
by stevengoddard

“According to US Navy PIPS2 maps, the area of thick Arctic ice has more than doubled, and the volume of Arctic ice has increased by 26% – since 2008. You can see from the graph below that ice thickness distribution has shifted dramatically to the right since the same date in 2008.

You can also see why NSIDC only likes to talk about 4+ year old ice. The reason being that it will take another two years to recover from the 2007 low…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Erin Brockovich – Another Green FAIL

Wednesday 09 February, 2011 – 04:37 by Grant in Default

views (144)

Yet another one for the They-just-keep-gettin-it-wrong department.

Yet another Academy Award for yet another (as in A. I. Truth) Greenie FRAUD.

Remember “Erin Brockovich”, the movie?
Well, it seems the unfortunate utility company involved wasn’t actually causing any cancer at all, after all.
Sorry, the legal largess is non-refundable, however.
Erin is crying about it all the way to the bank, but still trading.

Townhall Columnists
Bruce Bialosky
Another Environmental Disaster

” … It turns out, however, that a recent state survey found that the frequency of cancer cases in the Hinkley area for the period of 1996-2008 was actually 12.5% below the state average. Brockovich neither called PG & E to return the falsely-extorted money nor did she return to Hinkley to calm the residents who still have irrational fears stirred up by her antics. She has been too busy destroying other communities.

Brockovich next took aim at Beverly Hills (yes, that one), which for ages has famously had oil wells on its high school campus…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Softening Us Up For The AUS Carbon Tax

Tuesday 08 February, 2011 – 06:30 by Grant in Default

views (276)

Or trying too – NOT WERKIN’

Australia one of the largest drags on global climate action, says PM’s adviser, Ross Garnaut
Sid Maher
February 07, 2011 12:44PM

JULIA Gillard’s climate change adviser Ross Garnaut – Ross is actually a retired economist – very retired – has labelled Australia one of the largest drags on global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He also argues that the nation has the most to gain from effective global action to combat climate change. Platitute – there have been several attempts to gain from a Green economy – all demonstrated failures and there is NO global action to fight climate change, effective or otherwise.

In the second of a series of papers updating his 2008 climate change review, Professor Garnaut argues Australia, Canada and the United States have been the “largest drags on the global mitigation effort”. This is arrant garbage – and this man is supposed to be a prime ministerial adviser – AUS and Canada are bit players – DURH!

He also labelled the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009 as a “diplomatic fiasco” – got that right! – but said it was rescued from comprehensive failure by US President Barack Obama’s climate change understandings with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa during the meeting itself. Uh, President Obama wasn’t actually there, and the “understandings” were to agree to disagree.

Professor Garnaut says the outcomes of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings have led to a “messy world” in relation to the setting of each country’s ambitions on emissions reductions. Again, this is just arrant garbage – and this man is supposed to be a prime ministerial adviser – DURH! The UK is the only country left with any serious emissions ambitions.

“But they have embodied strong progress on several crucial and difficult issues, and may have laid a basis eventually for the comprehensive and binding international agreement that is still necessary to avoid high risks of dangerous climate change,” the paper says. What strong progress? There was NO strong progress on anything at all at Copenhagen and Cancun, they were both a fiasco. A binding international agreement is simply impossible – the Third World will simply not be denied prosperity. This tired old f*rt is giving the PM some very bad advice.

Professor Garnaut says most most developed countries are reasonably well placed to make full contributions to achieving strong global mitigation goals. What, by exporting their fuel consumption to China and India?!

But he says China’s attitude will be crucial “because it is the world’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, because it is by far the largest prospective source of emissions growth and because economic and strategic competition between China and the United States is important in the policy dynamics of both countries.” Uh Ross, baby, there is India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia et al – the whole third world – billions of them are adamantly against “Climate”. None of them are impressed with the idea of remaining as noble savages to save the planet.

Professor Garnaut’s prognosis that significant progress is being made in international efforts is likely to anger miners. The Minerals Council of Australia, in a briefing to mining executives, warns: “We need to be alert to exaggerated claims about the efforts under way in both developed and developing countries.”Oh so we’re off the evil banks and the evil insurance companies and back onto the evil miners now are we? Yawn.

Professor Garnaut argues Australia has much to gain from playing a key role in global efforts to combat climate change. Australia is a pimple on the USA bum, Ross – hate to tell you.

He said Australia was one of four developed countries with Canada, the United States and Norway whose economic structures had evolved most elaborately around the abundance of low-cost fossil fuels. Norway???!! Yes, our whole modern, prosperous, egalitarian, society is based entirely on cheap abundant fossil fuels for which there is no demonstrated viable alternative, except nuclear – you are an economist after all Ross.

But while this created a domestic political challenge, Australia had the greatest interest in effective mitigation. Uh, why mitigation Ross? What usefull purpose does mitigation serve exactly? Why not just adapt to any climate change that happens along – just like we always have done before? Droughts and flooding rains, Ross.

Australia has “exceptional advantages” in supplying virtually all the of the potentially major low-emissions energy sources including uranium oxide, solar power and unusually productive opportunites for development of algae as a low-cost source of bio-fuels. Ross, urainium OK, yes. You just keep telling them to invent another viable alternative, maybe some day they actually will. Come on bofins, invent. Ross told you to invent and you haven’t invented. Waiting, waiting, waiting.


Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Al Gore – Chickens Come Home To Roost.

Tuesday 08 February, 2011 – 05:01 by Grant in Default

views (199)

How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
Feb. 3 2011 – 10:39 am

” …Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for making the world aware of a crisis. Ironically, the real crisis is one he contributed much to create–one of mass hysteria promulgated through deceptively contrived alarmist propaganda.  Still, this could not have been possible were it not for an extended band of collaborators. Herein lies an exceedingly larger scandal–a conspiracy of silence on the part of many trusted scientists who knew differently, yet said nothing to expose the greatest economic and political hoax of our time.”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

It’s Not Werkin!! – New Global Fuel Data

Tuesday 08 February, 2011 – 04:59 by Grant in Default

views (79)

Like the hole in the ozone layer, the world’s consumption of fossil fuels is completely oblivious to Greenie efforts to stop it or even slow it down just a little.
Remember this next time you get your power bill and ask why?

The bottom line in this latest (2009) fossil fuel consumption is that the global, as in Global Warming, consumption of fuel has just rapidly increased from
18,433.92 million tonnes in 1980 to 30,451.64 million tonnes in 2009 and shows NO sign of stopping.

This UK Guardian greenie doesn’t seem to notice, but then the bottom line never worries Greenies anyway.

World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest
Posted by
Simon Rogers and Lisa Evans
Monday 31 January 2011 07.30 GMT

World CO2 emissions from consumption of energy – Google Docs

IEA CO2highlights

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Triple OOPS On Ocean Warming.

Monday 07 February, 2011 – 06:23 by Grant in Default

views (72)

But, Penny, look at the oceans you said were warming
Andrew Bolt
Monday, January 31, 2011 at 10:28am

“Then Climate Change Minister Penny Wong had an excuse in 2009 to explain why the world’s atmosphere had not warmed as global warmists had predicted. No, the real indicator of global warming was not the air temperature but that of the sea:… ”

” …But, oops: the evidence even then… ”

” …Double oops: as I posted a couple of weeks ago, a new…. ”

” …Triple oops: a new paper in the Journal of Physical Oceanography makes even plainer to Wong that … ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name – DAM

Monday 07 February, 2011 – 06:19 by Grant in Default

views (61)

Just because Greenies “saved” the Franklin does not mean no dams ever – pul-ese! We need affordable water. Drought will return.

I did mention “dam” once, but I think I got away with it
Andrew Bolt
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 at 10:36am

“This takes skill, or something else.
Radio National’s breakfast show reports on Victoria’s astonishingly expensive desalination plant, built for four times the cost of a dam for a third of the water. Several experts are interviewed, two of whom mention alternatives the Labor Government should have considered instead.
Now guess which three-letter word was not mentioned once..

(Thanks to reader Greg.)”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment


Monday 07 February, 2011 – 06:17 by Grant in Default

views (89)

Really, really, insulting sometimes innit?

Next he’ll say China isn’t building scores more coal-fired stations
Andrew Bolt
Thursday, February 03, 2011 at 06:53am

“Did Combet blush with shame as he said this?

AN AGGRESSIVE federal government campaign for a carbon price will argue that China and the US are moving to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the economy will suffer if Australia fails to act.
In an interview with The Age, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet backed climate adviser Ross Garnaut’s judgment that Australia was falling behind the world’s biggest economies in dealing with climate change and said it was ‘’absolute rubbish’’ to suggest it was acting ahead of the world..

China has openly declared it will not cap its own booming emissions of carbon dioxide. Barack Obama has let slide his own plans for a “cap and trade” system like the Gillard Government’s planned emissions trading scheme. In what possible way could it be argued that by imposing our own
“carbon tax” or ETS first that Australia is not acting ahead of the world’s biggest emitters?”

Not to mention that the EU just abandoned binding targets, see below, and the Indian Government just published skeptic science, also below, and Japan is also now out unless the rest of the world acts, and Germany is cutting feed in tarrifs, also below.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Climate Change Skeptics Sponsor Race Car

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 11:09 by Grant in Default

views (3,221)

Climate change skeptics back Wagga racer (video)
03/02/2011 | 12:12 PM

Pullen Claims His Team Doesnt Require Any Help From F1

“In the final days leading up to this weekends Armor All Bathurst 12 hour race, Wagga driver Hayden Pullen claims their team does not require assistance of anyone from Formula One to win the class.

Pullen will drive the Climate Control Sceptic #25 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 in the round the clock race at Mount Panorama with Paul Freestone and David Seiders in Class C.

He was responding to news one of the teams rivals for class honours, the Bruce Lynton BMW sponsored M3 to be driven by Beric Lynton, Matthew Mackelden and John Modystach have called on some Formula One know-how as they chase the win… ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

My List of Other Cynic Websites.

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 10:30 by Grant in Default

views (531) From Mark Morano – US Senator Inhofe’s former R. Hand Man – breaks news.

I.C.E.C.A.P. Brilliant website

WUWT Very newsy weblog – the latest data.

Andrew Bolt Blog – not all G. Warming – much Aus. politics – but Andrew is probably our most famous G. Warming cynic –

TWTW – 2010 The Week That Was (TWTW) Archives –

Jennifer Marohasy aussie scientist’s blog

Jo Nova – Aussie Scientist’s Blog – Excellent

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition – a very good, newsy website.

CO2 Science – more science than you can poke a stick at

SPPI – New site by heavyweight anti-alarmists, e.g. Lord Christopher Monckton, William Kininmonth, and our own Robert M. Carter …

The Carbon Sense Coalition – an eclectic group of aussies against the lies

Dr Roy Spencer – GLOBAL WARMING – – The brainiest climatologist in the world.

Professor Bob Carter – James Cook University – “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you” – Rudyard Kypling.

The Global Warming Petition project – an exercise in futility by over 17,000 scientists who naively thought that someone would listen, or even notice, if they said that they didnt believe it! (greenies attacked it as fake because one or two had famous names, e.g. Perry Mason, it was too late when a scientist named Perry Mason protested he had actually signed the petition!).
New – This petition has been re-run – 31,072 American scientists have signed the new petition, including 9,021 with PhDs – new link – – good other links on it also.

Junkscience – an irreverent tilt at those abusing science, including global warming  New –

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Euro Greenies Retreat

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 08:16 by Grant in Default

views (139)

This leaves the UK Greenies literally out in the cold with their ridiculous “mandatory” targets.

EU leaders to dodge energy efficiency at summit
Published: 03 February 2011

” …By the Commission’s own admission, the EU is set to miss its target to slash its energy consumption by 20% by 2020, telling EurActiv in December that the 27-member bloc is poised to reduce its energy consumption by only 9%.
Despite the shortcomings, EU leaders are expected to agree at Friday’s summit to review energy-efficiency policy only in 2013, instead of 2012 as previously planned, and plan to consider further measures only ”if necessary”…. ”

POSTSCRIPT – UK Guardian Greenies are not happy – Good – always good when UK Guardian Greenies are not happy.

Hopes of 30% cut in greenhouse emissions dashed
EU energy chief fears target would lead to a too-fast process of de-industrialisation as compared to current 20%
Fiona Harvey
Thursday 10 February 2011 21.25 GMT
BTW – Perhaps there is just a little, secret, sigh of relief in there!

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Engineer’s Response To Obama’s 80% Goal.

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 08:13 by Grant in Default

views (83)

No we can’t!

In the real world it’s not what “scientists say” – it’s what “engineers say” that really counts.

80% “Clean” Energy by 2035: What Does This Mean?
by Ken Kok
February 3, 2011

” …So what are we really talking about in such a major energy transformation?  As calculated in Table 1, the staggering answer is 750+ large nuclear plants and 1.4 million + large wind machines–not to menntion some 500 new gas-fired power plants to firm up the wind…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Satellite Temps Plunge

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 08:11 by Grant in Default

views (77)

2011 – Coldest Year Ever?
In the previous post I pointed out that Climate Change only ever causes bad weather.
This is just like the claim that “2010 was the hottest year ever”.
Click on this graph to get the big picture.

It is patently absurd to claim 2010 as “the hottest year ever” because…

ONE 30 years is far too short on a climate change scale, but, before that we only had thermometer weather data on much less than 30% of the globe – the land where we live.

TWO 1984 was just as cold as 2010 was hot.

THREE Only 1 month after 2010, global temperature is back to normal and actually plunging down.

FOUR 1998 was obviously warmer.

FIVE The global temperature is actually about 15 degrees – the average temp of the whole globe is only swinging between +/- 0.4 degrees – insignifigant if not totally trivial.

There are four ways to measure global warming, satellite, weather boxes on land, Argo Floats and weather balloons.
Since the globe is 70% ocean, the two main ones are satellite and the Argo floats.

The satellite variation shown is trivial, the Argo ocean data shows a slight cooling – not so trivial (the oceans are very, very slow to warm or cool).

This satellite data graph does already show that the Earth’s temperature is remarkably self-regulating and stable and that the temperature spikes never “enhance” the effect of the planet’s greenhouse gas, water vapour, as required by the Alarmists “holds-more-moisture”, Enhanced Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, theory.

UAH global temperature anomaly goes negative
Posted on February 2, 2011 by Anthony Watts
From Dr. Roy Spencer:

BTW – it does slightly annoy me to label 1998 as “El Nino” – El Nino is not a cause – Mt Pinitubo is a cause but El Nino is just a phenomena. What causes the El Nino?

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

New Papers

Saturday 05 February, 2011 – 08:02 by Grant in Default

views (108)

Roger Pielke Sr.
February 3, 2011 · 7:00 am
Self Regulation Of The Climate System By Deep Cumulus Convection

” …This limit on tropospheric cooling  is reported on in our paper:

Chase, T.N., B. Herman, R.A. Pielke Sr., X. Zeng, and M. Leuthold, 2002: A proposed mechanism for the regulation of minimum midtropospheric temperatures in the Arctic. J. Geophys. Res., 107(D14), 10.10291/2001JD001425

Tsukernik, M., T.N. Chase, M.C. Serreze, R.G. Barry, R. Pielke Sr., B. Herman, and X. Zeng, 2004: On the regulation of minimum mid-tropospheric temperatures in the Arctic. Geophys. Res. Letts., 31, L06112, doi:10.1029/2003GL018831

Herman, B., M. Barlage, T.N. Chase, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Update on a proposed mechanism for the regulation of  minimum mid-tropospheric and surface temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24101, doi:10.1029/2008JD009799.

Herman, B.M. M.A. Brunke, R.A. Pielke Sr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2010: Global and hemispheric lower tropospheric temperature trends. Remote Sensing, 2, 2561-2570; doi:10.3390/rs2112561

Since, as discussed in my post

The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme Winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”

it is the cold tropospheric air towards the poles and the warmer tropospheric air to the south that drives the westerlies, if the coldest that the troposphere can achieve is -40C to -45C, irrespective of a global average surface temperature trend, this is a self-regulation of the climate system.

Similarly, tropospheric temperatures cannot become warmer that about -5C at 500mb  in the tropics for very long as deep convection over the warmest oceans still results in temperatures at that level of ~-5C.  This deep convection is prevalent over tropical oceans as air travels around the globe…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

ABC Lateline Returns To Tired Old Party Line.

Friday 04 February, 2011 – 04:35 by Grant in Default

views (107)

Fortunately this time nobody believes them.

They wound up poor old Ross Garnaut and away he went.

Garnaut warns Yasi is only the beginning
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 03/02/2011
Reporter: Tom Iggulden

” …ROSS GARNAUT, CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISOR: While Australia has always been a place of variable climate, a place of drought and flooding rains, the greater energy in the atmosphere and the seas can intensify extreme events and I’m afraid that we’re feeling some of that today. And we are feeling that at a time when global warming is in its early stages…. ”

” …ROSS GARNAUT: A warming climate does lead to intensification of these sorts of extreme climatic events that we’ve seen in Queensland and I think that people are wishing to avoid those awful challenges in Queensland will be amongst the people supporting effective action on climate change…. ”

There are FIVE main things WRONG with this…

ONE   There is NO science behind it. They just made it up as they went along. Plausable, but scientifically unsupported and easily debunked, superstitious rubbish.

TWO   Global Warming is NOT in “its early stages” – we have seen NO unusual or unprecedented global temperature changes, despite a huge, almost exponential, increase in fossil fuels usage.

THREE   Global Warming only causes bad weather – it has NEVER caused any good weather – yeah, right!

FOUR   We have been told by alarmists for years that Climate Change was causing the drought and we were running out of water. Nature corrected that all by itself. No carbon tax needed.

FIVE   There is no “effective action” on Global Warming. International talks have collapsed. Exactly how is a carbon tax in AUS going to have any effect on future La Ninas in the Pacific? Come on Ross, put up or shut up!

POSTSCRIPT – More Rebuttal from Andrew Bolt Blog
Dear Professor Garnaut: we’ve seen it before, so stop acting so shocked
Andrew Bolt
Friday, February 04, 2011 at 06:23am


Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Here Is Me Thinking It Was Science.

Friday 04 February, 2011 – 04:31 by Grant in Default

views (94)

– he said sarcastically.
This astounding little piece in a so-called science magazine will certainly disabuse you of that!

Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace deal
12:04 2 February 2011
Fred Pearce, consultant

” …The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism. Post-Climategate, he found climate science characterised by “a poisoned atmosphere” in which “each side accuses the other of being corrupt”. Mainstream researchers were labelled “ideologues on the gravy train”, while sceptics were denigrated as “prostitutes and cranks”…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

CO2 Science – Definitive Report

Thursday 03 February, 2011 – 07:14 by Grant in Default

views (297)

“CO2 Science” is high on the list of “other anti-alarmist web sites”. It produces huge volumes of pure peer-reviewed science. This is an excellent summary of it.

Carbon Dioxide and Earths Future
Pursuing the Prudent Path
Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Executive Summary
As presently constituted, earths atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. Thats only four-hundredths of one percent. Consequently, even if the air’s CO2 concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earths atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes.
As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to determine the state of earths climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are?… ”

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ………………………………………………. 3
Introduction …………………………………………………………. 5
1. Unprecedented Warming of the Planet ……………………. 6
2. More Frequent and Severe Floods and Droughts ……… 16
3. More Frequent and Severe Hurricanes …………………… 32
4. Rising Sea Levels Inundating Coastal Lowlands ………. 43
5. More Frequent and Severe Storms ……………………….. 50
6. Increased Human Mortality …………………………………. 58
7. Widespread Plant and Animal Extinctions ………………. 72
8. Declining Vegetative Productivity ………………………….. 85
9. Frequent Coral Bleaching …………………………………… 92
10. Marine Life Dissolving Away in Acidified Oceans ……. 104
Concluding Commentary ………………………………………. 110
References ……………………………………………………….. 114

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Absurdity Of Fixing Climate.

Thursday 03 February, 2011 – 07:10 by Grant in Default

views (61)

Not only was Climate Change faked with esoteric computer models and psuedo-science, but it is also now patently absurd to try and fix it.
Nobody seems to ask why? What purpose does it serve to double our power bills and send the money to China?

HSBC research reveals China’s coal rush
Terry McCrann
From: Herald Sun December 16, 2010 12:00AM

” …So if we shut our entire coal-fired power sector, we would offset about 7 per cent of China’s current coal-fired emissions. And in doing so increase the amount of real pollution in the world as our generators don’t pump the real grit and dirt that China’s do.
Over the next 10 years HSBC – and just about everyone else – estimates China is going to double, yes, double, its installed capacity. To 1800GW. Which will make it around 30 times Australia’s then.
That increase is going to all be lovely so-called clean energy isn’t it, as the HSBC team gush? Maybe also some – Julia Gillard, close your eyes and ears – nuclear?
Well, actually, no.
HSBC says the targets are for – wicked, wicked dams-driven – hydro to increase to 380GW, wind to leap to 150GW, nuclear to go to 80GW and solar to 20GW.
Sounds impressive in our terms. Wind that’s triple our total power sector, solar that’s approaching half.
But do the math…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

BBC Disgraces Itself Further

Wednesday 02 February, 2011 – 09:28 by Grant in Default

views (99)

“Meet The Skeptics” its called.
Obviously they are severely embarrassed by this mockumentary, it is difficult to find now, but here is the promo – just watch it – have you been taking these Greenie people seriously? Oh dear. That will be expensive.

The public are very media savy these days and they know a media snow job when they see it.

This one is a real doosey!

Watch this promo – says it all really – yes, this screen capture does actually portray sceptics as gun-toting rednecks – must think we are stupid! “The Right” is vociferous, but the opposition to AGW is now huge and mainstream and the BBC has a duty to balance its reporting. It fails and insults the british people very badly with this crap.

The british have also been very let down by their Conservative Party and this mockumentary is the direct result.
Similar snow jobs were unleashed by our aussie ABC until it became obvious that half our conservative Liberal Party were skeptics themselves. Our leader of the opposition was forced to recant his comment that AGW was “crap” but the political opposition is there and it is strong.

By William Dove | February 2, 2011 2:34 AM AEST
Climate change: A new religion complete with evangelists, tithes, indulgences and superstitions

” …There was worse still in the programme, with one scientist effectively saying that democracy might need to be suspended in order for governments to successfully prevent a climate catastrophe.
Such statements are of course why sceptics such as James Delingpole and Lord Monckton have become all the fiercer in their criticism of climate change activists in recent years, seeing in climate change activism a threat not just to prosperity but to liberty.
The great problem with climate change is that it no longer seems like a scientific theory, but more like a 21st century version of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church, complete with evangelists, tithes, indulgences and bizarre superstitions.
Just as in medieval times when the people were expected to (and often did) believe everything they were told by the priest, now we see that it is the scientist whose word is gospel. Even today panellists on programmes such as BBC Question Time who question climate change can be booed and jeered at by people who read scientific papers on the issue even less than illiterate medieval peasants read the Bible, at the time still un-translated from the Latin…. ”

” …This might all be harmless fun if it just stayed in peoples minds. But governments are already taking steps to deal with this alleged threat to civilisation, steps which already damage the least well off more than any other.
Last year energy companies in Britain announced that they would be raising household energy bills, partly so that they could fund the governments climate change and social policies. In addition to paying this compulsory tithe to the church of climate change through their energy bills, sincere believers can also purchase an indulgence for every time they take a flight by paying extra to offset their carbon emissions.
I do not know if climate change is a real problem. Ive heard many convincing arguments from both sides of the debate, however I cannot help but feel weary about a movement which claims we will face the apocalypse if we dont abandon our prosperity and liberty, especially when we have seen that the people making these predictions can and do make mistakes like the rest of us. Of course we should listen to the scientists on both sides, but we should also remember that they are no more infallible than the Pope is.”


BBC4 “Meet the Skeptics”
Posted on February 1, 2011 by Anthony Watts

” …I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hours worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.
Then, they showed me the contract they wanted me to sign (no mention at the beginning before the interview) and I spent several minutes reading it, finally deciding that the contract basically amounted to me giving them all rights to my image, words, and opinion, with specific rights to edit them together in any way they saw fit. Yes, as I recall, that was exactly the way it was worded in the contract, and basically gave them a license to create their own alternate Watts interview reality as they desired…. ”

Meet The Sceptics: another BBC stitch-up
By James Delingpole
Politics Last updated: January 31st, 2011

” … But I was too busy.
Because, yes, you guessed it, Murrays documentary is another hatchet job. This time the man designated for the chop is Lord Monckton. Except, knowing Monckton as I do, I dont think hes going to let this one lie. Sure he will probably be made to look a fool, but then as Richard North explains in this superb essay, this means nothing.
This is the practice of modern documentary makers, who can gather huge amounts of material and then edit and assemble the material in a way that they can present a message, the message the producer wishes to convey. This is irrespective of what is actually said, and what interviewees actually intended.
The process, North explains, works like this:
You write the script first, setting out what you want to say. Then you go out and find the talking heads that will say the words you need to fit the script. You (in this case I) interview them, collect up the words on the tape and then go back to the edit suite and pull out the words that fit…. ”

Stay tuned – obviously more to come.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

BBC Beliefs Looking More And More Stewpid.

Tuesday 01 February, 2011 – 09:46 by Grant in Default

views (102)

Never beleve your own propoganda – the globe may actually cool, not warm.

Christopher Booker
How BBC warmists abuse the science

” …Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.

The formula the BBC uses in its forlorn attempts to counterattack has been familiar ever since its 2008 series Climate Wars. First, a presenter with some scientific credentials comes on, apparently to look impartially at the evidence. Supporters of the cause are allowed to put their case without challenge. Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous. The presenter can then conclude that the “deniers” are a tiny handful of eccentrics standing out against an overwhelming scientific “consensus”.

Monday’s Horizon exemplified this formula to a T. The scientist picked to front the progamme was… ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Dutch Scientist Blows A Very Loud Whistle

Tuesday 01 February, 2011 – 09:44 by Grant in Default

views (68)

The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2
Posted on February 1st
Dr Noor van Andel

“Dr Noor van Andel spoke at the Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI), provocatively concluding there is no observational evidence for the influence of CO2 on past or present climate. He has released a high caliber slide set. He is the former head of research at Akzo Nobel…. ”

” …According to the models humidity ought to rise as the world warms, providing the major bulk of the positive feedback in the IPCC climate models. And it does — but only in the lower atmosphere. The rising humidity would have the largest warming effect if it occurred higher in the troposphere (thereby creating the hot spot), but specific humidity at up at 600mB has been falling, not rising — and the fall is even larger at 400mB (lower pressure means higher in the atmosphere)

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The La Nina

Tuesday 01 February, 2011 – 09:41 by Grant in Default

views (65)

This NASA image shows the Sea surface temperature anomaly – how much it varies from the average – in the Pacific Ocean.

You can see that, while the seas around Australia have warmed, it is certainly not global.

Alarmists have always cited isolated events to “prove” their case. The classic example of this is glaciers. Nobody has ever measured and quantified every single glacier on earth or anywhere near it, and published the result. It is a cheap shot to point out a single glacier and claim is global warming or “climate change” – psuedo-science – proves nothing.

The big picture question is what huge natural forcings cause the ENSO – El Nino Southern oscillation – it is certainly not human – there is no unusual warming of the planet – perfectly normal.

Here is the December satellite global air temperature anomoly which shows the lower atmosphere (where we live) temperature anomoly. It shows no global warming trend in the face of huge ongoing human “emission” of “carbon”. None. These are exagerated tiny fractions of a degree – perfectly normal variation.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Obama Writes For The WSJ

Monday 31 January, 2011 – 08:16 by Grant in Default

views (88)

“Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Ronald Regan called them “The ten most dangerous words in the English language”

With the Senate still on his side Obama blithely ignores the huge conservative backlash at the Polls and motors on regardless.

Will all of the Senate Democrats be happy to be a one-termer like their Leader?

This Obama-speak in the WSJ article is almost chilling…

JANUARY 18, 2011.
Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System
If the FDA deems saccharin safe enough for coffee, then the EPA should not treat it as hazardous waste

” …Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter—and in some cases tougher—rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars.
This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. We can make our economy stronger and more competitive, while meeting our fundamental responsibilities to one another.

Mr. Obama is president of the United States.”

Response 1
JANUARY 28, 2011.
Cap and Trade Returns From the Grave

The president’s plans for “clean energy standards” amount to carbon controls by other means.

Response 2
Obama’s regulation pledge does not pass the laugh test
By: Iain Murray 01/18/11 4:48 PM
Special to the Examiner

” …Fine words, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.  As an example of the new way forward on regulation, he cited the new EPA standards on fuel economy, which he suggests is a tasty dessert:

When I took office, the country faced years of litigation and confusion because of conflicting rules set by Congress, federal regulators and states.  The EPA and the Department of Transportation worked with auto makers, labor unions, states like California, and environmental advocates this past spring to turn a tangle of rules into one aggressive new standard. It was a victory for car companies that wanted regulatory certainty; for consumers who will pay less at the pump; for our security, as we save 1.8 billion barrels of oil; and for the environment as we reduce pollution.

In fact, the new regulations are almost indigestible. No-one in the auto industry has any idea of how to meet their requirements while still supplying the sort of car Americans need to drive.  One thing is for certain – that the attempts to meet the standards will result in vehicles that are both much more expensive and much smaller, meaning many more deaths on the road…. ”

Response 3
Obama’s regulatory window dressing versus real reform
Ron Arnold 01/27/11 8:05 PM

” …At first, even Obama’s vociferous critic the U.S. Chamber of Commerce welcomed his “intention to restore balance to government regulations.” A thorough reading of the order, however, revealed that there was no such intention.
The weasel words in the fine print ordered all government appointees to load their cost-benefit tests with values impossible to quantify — “equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.”
Such irreproachable notions are hard to test for cost-benefit purposes, but they will inevitably be tallied by regulators as “benefits” worth billions, a safety valve that will get them off the hook of actually eliminating regulations, with its attendant downsizing of agency staff, salaries and power.
But the regulated who pay for those lofty benefits carry them as costs — costs that busy job creators didn’t notice and that baffled bookkeepers didn’t know where to enter on their ledgers.
Agency heads aren’t about to admit that “distributive impacts” are costs. That’s murky language, but probably means “transfer payments” in Obama-speak…. ”

‘Be nice if the globe was actually overheating!

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Very Detailed Analysis – Wind Vs. Nuclear

Monday 31 January, 2011 – 08:07 by Grant in Default

views (132)

Windpower Emissions: Kleekamp Critique (Part III – Cost of Wind and Nuclear Plants)
by Kent Hawkins
January 26, 2011

“Parts I and II dealt with most of the issues in a recent paper by Chuck Kleekamp and showed the weaknesses of his analysis. This post addresses in detail the question of the costs of electricity generation for nuclear and wind.

Kleekamp says, “If you think wind power is expensive, wait till you have to pay for electricity from a new nuclear plant.” This suggests that nuclear plant electricity is more expensive than that of wind. This is remarkably incorrect…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Fronce – Fingers Burnt By Sun

Monday 31 January, 2011 – 08:05 by Grant in Default

views (150)

Planet Gore The hot blog.
France’s Solar Bubble Pops
January 20, 2011 12:45 P.M.
By Carl Shockley
Everybody knows about Spain’s solar bubble, but did you know France had one too?

” …Now costing 1 billion euros per year, the program does not expire until 2017 and has put the utility in trouble. EDF’s stock declined 20 percent last year, compared to only a 3.7 percent decline for the rest of Europe’s Stoxx 600 Utilities Index. The utility is now 57 billion euros in debt. Plans to upgrade its aging fleet of 53 nuclear reactors — which provide 75 percent of France’s electricity — have been thrown into doubt. The utility has been forced to raise the renewables levy on other customers from 4.50 euros to 7.50 euros per megawatt-hour, but financial analysts say they will have to pay up to 12.90 euros — almost 25 percent above the market price — for EDF to break even.

Unlike Spain, which entertained hopes of becoming a world leader in solar manufacturing, France seems to have created its bubble out of sheer delusions over the “renewable future.” “Most panels installed in France were made in China with a highly questionable carbon footprint,” Environment Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet told parliament last month. “Policies should create jobs in France, not subsidize Chinese industry.”

They should also recognize that running the world on solar energy is a disastrously expensive fantasy.”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Eddie Maguire Dips His Toe Into Muddy Waters!

Sunday 30 January, 2011 – 10:40 by Grant in Default

views (73)

Forget the climate-change theory, let’s get on with the job
Eddie McGuire
January 23, 2011 12:00AM

“VICTORIA’S highest- ranking public official, Governor David de Kretser, believes in the effects of climate change.
Victoria’s highest elected official, Premier Ted Baillieu, doesn’t.
Opinion writer Andrew Bolt flat-out says that climate change is nonsense.
Greens leader Senator Bob Brown believes the coal industry should pay for the damage caused by the floods, so obvious is its impact on our weather.
What they all have in common is that they are intelligent, community-minded people.
They have all looked at the research, heard the lectures, examined the evidence and are no closer to knowing the answer to the question: “Does man have a significant influence on the changing weather patterns?”
All shape public opinion and can argue their cause with passion and intelligence.
Unfortunately, climate change is heading the way of religion and football barracking…. ”

YAY Eddie – what a good idea – forget the Climate Change Theory – now why didn’t I think of that?!
Actually there are an awful lot of very embarrassed lefties trying to do just that as we speak, Eddie.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Non-Anthropogenic, Non-Global, Non-Warming, Climate Change!

Sunday 30 January, 2011 – 10:37 by Grant in Default

views (65)

Well, I mean the climate did change – from drought to flooding rain – perfectly normal, however.

No, global warming causes bad journalism instead
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 03:25pm

Reuters was once a news agency, rather than a propagandist outfit. Here’s the headline over a report it’s distributed on Julia Gillard’s flood levy:

Australia Raises a Tax to Cover the Costs of Climate Change –

We have? Can Reuters name that scientist who says this not-unprecedented La Nina flood was actually caused by man-made warming?


PlanetArk/Reuters also failed to notice that Julia also took her chance to axe quite a few useless, annoying, Greenie expenditures in the process.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

850 Peer Reviewed Papers – Count ‘Em

Sunday 30 January, 2011 – 10:34 by Grant in Default

views (64)

All the science seen not fit to print!
So “the science is settled” – NOT!

850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Friday, January 14, 2011

” …Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,… ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Anna’s Little Xmas Surprise

Sunday 30 January, 2011 – 10:32 by Grant in Default

views (64)

This little silly season gem slipped us by on Xmas eve!

Don’t tell me that Anna has finally realised that the worst possible nuclear accident – Chernobyl – actually only killed about fifty people, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.

I’ve got a better idea Anna, just STOP TAKING GREENIES SERIOUSLY  – they always get it wrong.

Anna Bligh opens door to nuclear power
EXCLUSIVE: Jamie Walker and Imre Salusinszky
December 24, 2010 12:00AM

” …She joins senior Labor figures including federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, right-wing Australian Workers Union leader Paul Howes, former NSW premier Bob Carr and Labor senators Steve Hutchins and Mark Bishop in supporting a review of the ALP’s long-standing ban on nuclear power, most likely at the party’s national conference next December
The conference is already set to become a political battleground over gay marriage.
In an interview with The Australian, Ms Bligh said the national conference was “where these debates should happen. We shouldn’t be frightened of them.”
The office of NSW Premier Kristina Keneally said yesterday she was “open to a public debate” on nuclear energy…. ”

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then!

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Band Wagon Rolls On

Saturday 29 January, 2011 – 06:00 by Grant in Default

views (232)

A wheel has almost fallen off, but the band plays on.

Winter is almost over in the UK and your Greenie scientist’s thoughts are turning to expedition.
It is amazing to me that this tired old discredited bullcrap is still around in 2011. You really cannot keep a good doomsday scenario down – ‘specially when you’re throwing squillions at it.

Climate change means we will be skiing in Yorkshire rather than sunbathing under palm trees, experts warn
We are more likely to be skiing in Yorkshire than basking under palm trees, a leading climate change expert has warned as global warming will actually lead to Britain getting colder.
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
7:01AM GMT 26 Jan 2011

” …But the process that causes this movement could be “switched off” by… ”
There COULD be fairies at the bottom of my garden too.

” …Researchers believe that the melting of glacial ice could be contributing to the ocean becoming less saline… ”
There COULD be fairies at the bottom of my garden as well.

” …But increased levels of fresh water and warming Arctic seas could reduce the… ”
“Could” again – lots of “could”s here! The Arctic, like The Globe is NOT warming, it did for awhile – then it stopped – nothing unusual – perfectly normal.

” …The scientists were speaking ahead of an expedition to the Arctic ice cap as part of efforts to establish how it is melting … ”
But, but, it isn’t melting – well – it does melt a little every year, it’s called summer!

” …”As the ice melts, you not only get loss of habitat, you get changes to the current,” he said…. ”
Perhaps we should wait until it actually melts – there is NOTHING unprededented or unusual about the Arctic sea ice – it’s perfectly normal!

” …Referring to a disaster movie depicting a world thrown into a deep freeze, he said: “It’s not a catastrophic The Day After Tomorrow-type scenario, but we would notice winters become slightly cooler, and summers would be slightly wetter and cooler…. ”
So science has come to this – a disaster movie fer crissake! Oh well the whole thing is a fantasy based on computer model simulations (“scenarios”), playstation science Steve Milloy calls it, so why not?! It’s only money – our money,

” …”It’s not catastrophic – we’re not going to see the English Channel freezing over. But we are more likely to be skiing in Yorkshire than sitting under palm trees.”… ”
It is catastrophic – for alarmists – it is meant to be “Global” warming – not only the UK is freezing, the whole of Europe, east and west, Russia and North America is also freezing. Simon will get this year’s expedition funding thru and maybe next year’s but he will have to invent a whole new doomsday scenario after that.

Even if the Arctic was melting, we’re talking global warming here, there is no sign of any melting in Antarctica – none – never has been; The reverse in fact.

The real science is all around on the internet
Here’s one
Arctic Temperatures and Ice – Why it is Natural Variability
Posted on November 1, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Here’s more
Category Archives: Arctic

BTW – while the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps contain almost all the world’s ice – kilometers thick – the Arctic is actually a deep ocean covered by a thin crust of ice a few meters thick.
This ice is relatively fragile and very responsive to the visisitudes of wind, waves, ocean currents and other natural phenomena.
We see this thin crust coming and going and waxing and waning, but it doesn’t matter.
Arctic ice, being white, does reflect some heat to space – an albedo effect – but not much – the Sun’s heat is very weak at those extreme latitudes and of course it is fundamental physics that melting floating ice contracts in volume and thus has no effect on sea level.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Knives Sharpened For US EPA

Friday 28 January, 2011 – 07:49 by Grant in Default

views (119)

The attempt by the Obama Democrats to use the Environment Protection Agency to govern in the USA (since CO2 is intrinsic to all aspects of modern American life) seems doomed.

The US Supreme Court decision did not mandate the EPA to set CO2 regulations, it just gave it the power to do so.

Gingrich calls for replacing the EPA
By Andrew Restuccia – 01/25/11 06:57 PM ET

” …The ESA’s new charter would specifically “eliminate job-killing regulatory abuses” and encourage working with industry in developing rules.
“The new ESA will be a successor agency to the EPA, incorporating the statutory responsibilities of the old EPA while making necessary statutory changes that will eliminate the job-killing regulatory abuses and power grabs of the old EPA,” the summary says…. ”

Senate Republicans lay down markers in bid to block EPA climate rules
By Ben Geman – 01/26/11 10:30 AM ET

“The scores of Senate bills introduced Tuesday include a measure to block Environmental Protection climate change rules, and there’s more to come.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced a bill to “prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions,” according to the Congressional Record.
There’s more en route. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is planning a bill that would broadly prevent EPA and other federal agencies from addressing greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes.
Bills to completely nullify EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases are highly unlikely to clear the Senate.
But some lawmakers — led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) — are hoping to pass legislation that would delay regulation of power plants, refiners and other sources for two years.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Climate Changes At The UN

Friday 28 January, 2011 – 07:45 by Grant in Default

views (192)

Ban Ki-moon ends hands-on involvement in climate change talks
UN secretary general will redirect efforts to making more immediate gains in clean energy and sustainable development
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent,
Thursday 27 January 2011 15.17 GMT

” …”His heart is still there, and he does want to make a breakthrough in his tenure, but this might provide a better platform in the near future,” said one UN official.
However, they say he now believes there are more immediate gains to be made in mobilising international finance to support a green economy in developing countries than in trying to persuade world leaders to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Others inside the UN system as well as in world capitals have been circling towards a similar conclusion as Ban: that gains in clean energy technology and energy efficiency could do more in the near future to reduce emissions. They could then drive the overarching deal that the UN still sees as necessary…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

State Of Dis Union

Thursday 27 January, 2011 – 05:44 by Grant in Default

views (295)

Such a pity that President Obama has not noticed that the “natural forcings”, blithely dismissed by the UN IPCC, are now proven in fact much more powerfull than any human forcings of climate and therefore we do not need to panic.
The Globe stopped warming.
The Sun has gone very quiet.
We could be entering a new ice age.
Somebody should tell him – Climate Change will just look more and more stupid with every cold year and will continue to taint his presidency.

” …Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs…. ”
Uh, the science WAS there, rocketry and aerospace science was quite well advanced – just needed a lot of money to develop it.

” …Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”… ”
Uh, you cannot produce megawatts of power on battery-inverter systems – they are a novelty toy for the rich and trendy, paid for by the poor and needy. Solar shingles are NOT a solution and the problem is non-existant too – the globe is not warming – it’s cooling.

” …We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time… ”
Uh, he IS just handing out money. The Opollo Project was based on sound science and proven technology. Engineers knew they could do it – it was just a matter of scaling it all up. There is NO, repeat NO, proven, demonstrated alternative to fossil fuels, except nuclear, none. Wishing it, willing it, and spending money on it will not make it so. There is a big difference between invention and innovation.
President Kennedy asked them “can you do it” and got an honest reply. President Obama just chanted “yes we can” and got lied to.

” …Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen… ”
Uh, clean energy breakthroughs will only happen when and IF they are invented. Let’s have a goal by 2035 that we will find the fairies at the bottom of the garden, or why not flying cars? Come on we can do it, start inventing!
Wind and solar are demonstrated failures, clean coal is positively dangerous, and coal is already clean, all pollutants are scrubbed, it is not dirty to produce the plant food carbon dioxide, the planet is hungry for it.

The words “climate” and “global warming” do not appear in the State of the Union Address
Posted on January 25, 2011 by Anthony Watts

” …Following is the full text of President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery and released by the White House press office…. ”

The Republicans did not clap any climate change or green jobs references – just sat on their hands.


POSTSCRIPT – State Of The Union 2011 – Reactions
Climate change Barack Obama less interested than Bush, analysis reveals



Energy, enviro reactions to Obama’s address – The Hill’s E2-Wire

What it means – a translation of  the Obamaspeak
White House fact sheet details Obama’s SOTU energy plan – The Hill’s E2-Wire

And Greenies not happy – good – always a good sign when Greenies are not happy!
Obama was wrong not to mention climate change in his State of the Union  Grist

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Times They Are A Changin’

Thursday 27 January, 2011 – 05:35 by Grant in Default

views (109)

By the end of the year John was gone.
Kevin07, Penny Wong and Peter Garrett
ratified Kyoto with a flourish and rushed off to the Bali Love-In with Bob Brown.

By 2011 Kevin07 was gone, Penny and Peter had jumped ship and the Australian-Of-The-Year people are much more circumspect and much less political who they award to.
Timmy was left, and I do mean Left, right out of the ceremony.

Flannery Australian of the Year
From: The Advertiser January 25, 2007 11:30PM

POSTSCRIPT – OOPS – Seems the Australian-of-the-year people have not learned from previous mistakes after all.
The 2011 winner is not only the head of the CSIRO but he’s also a rabid Greenie – groan.
2011 Australian of the Year: Carbon Dioxide Caused Wind to Evaporate
Posted by jennifer, January 26th, 2011

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Biggest Failure Of Journalism In History.

Wednesday 26 January, 2011 – 05:55 by Grant in Default

views (82)

To this day it takes a retiring whisltleblower, with no career to lose and a book to promote, to point out the huge failure of the so called gatekeepers of democracy, the fourth estate, the mainstream media.
Only the extended cooling of the planet itself revealed the fraud – “The Media” failed us very badly.

The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent
By Peter Sissons
Last updated at 10:55 AM on 25th January 2011

” …The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
But the Trust continued its ­pretence that climate change ­dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority ­opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’
In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public…. ”

” …From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents.
These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say?.?.?.?’ would get on air unchallenged.

On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that.

On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid…. ”

Permalink | Comments (1) | Leave a comment

Fox News Demolishes Hottest Ever Claims

Wednesday 26 January, 2011 – 05:53 by Grant in Default

views (79)

Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever
Published January 24, 2011

” …But how reliable is the data? Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

1. Where does the data come from?… ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Wind Dies Down.

Wednesday 26 January, 2011 – 05:50 by Grant in Default

views (66)

How much of your aussie super did unionists put into P.Correct windpower?

The main, fundamental, reasons wind power failed is
ONE – It is too unreliable – very rarely runs at capacity and rapidly drops off and starts up again.
TWO – It is too big – needs huge areas and volumes to produce very little power.

January 24, 2011 10:17 AM PST
U.S. wind power drops off despite falling prices
by Martin LaMonica

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Financial Times – OK, OK, We’ve Been Lying To You, But…

Tuesday 25 January, 2011 – 07:51 by Grant in Default

views (153)

As the Globe starts cooling, this Euro-greenie tries to rationalise his way out of the public backlash – Fails.
This otherwise very good article has two HUGE faults hidden it.

FAULT ONE – ” …Certainly, man-made climate change is happening – it has already contributed to rising global temperatures and sea levels… ”
FAIL – Fails to mention that the “contributed” rise is so small, so trivial, that it cannot actually be discerned against normal, natural, climate variation.
FAIL – There are NO “rising global temperatures” otherwise they wouldn’t have switched to “extreme weather”. The globe did warm, but not much – perfectly normal – then it leveled out – now it’s falling.

FAULT TWO – ” …This pits virtually all climate scientists against a band of self-taught freelance sceptics, many of whom think the “global warming hoax” is a ruse got up by 1960s radicals as a trick to bring in socialism. (I know, I get the sceptics’ e-mails.) … ”
FAIL – “Virtually all” “climate scientists” are paid to support the UN IPCC position – follow the money. Science is not a popularity contest, one scientist with a reasoned, replicable argument is all it takes to change real science.
FAIL – You don’t need to be a “self-taught freelance sceptic” to realise that AGW alarmists are leftists – they were just very sucessful at conning center-rightists.
FAIL – But they ARE “radical” – Our prosperous, egalitarian, society is based entirely on cheap abundant fossil fuels and there is no demonstrated viable alternative to them – except nuclear – none. To advocate their rationing and removal without a demonstrated, viable alternative in place IS “radical” – even more radical that socialism.
FAIL – Rationing and control of fossil fuels requires big government, big rules, big regulation, big subsidies, big redistribution of wealth etc., etc., that IS socialism!

A disastrous truth
By Simon Kuper
Published: January 21 2011 22:04 | Last updated: January 21 2011 22:04

” …Every time a disaster strikes, some environmentalists blame it on climate change. “It’s been such a part of the narrative of the public and political debate, particularly after Hurricane Katrina,” Roger Pielke Jr, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Colorado, told me. “You see the Pakistani floods or even the snowstorm over Paris, and people trot out the connection to climate change.”

The poster for Al Gore’s environmentalist film An Inconvenient Truth shows a tropical cyclone coming out of a power plant’s smokestack. The Stern report on climate change also said greenhouse gases were increasing the losses from disasters. But nothing in the scientific literature indicates that this is true. A host of recent peer-reviewed studies agree: there’s no evidence that climate change has increased the damage from natural disasters. Most likely, climate change will make disasters worse some day, but not yet.

Laurens Bouwer, of Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit, has recently reviewed 22 “disaster loss studies” and concludes: “Anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.” Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel of the London School of Economics found likewise in their recent… ”

FAIL – “Extreme Weather’ is not just incidental to AGW alarm, it is intrinsic to it.
“Extreme weather” is used to justify the argument, yes, found in the infamous Stern Review, that it is much, much, more expensive to not “fix” Climate Change than to just adapt to any climate that comes along.
“Extreme weather” is absolutely intrinsic to the AGW imperative. No extreme weather – no cause for alarm.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Off The Agenda In USA

Monday 24 January, 2011 – 07:25 by Grant in Default

views (122)

Happy New Year.
“Climate” didn’t rate a mention on MSNBC “Meet The Press” today, discussing the political agenda for 2011. Not a single word.

MSNBC Meet The Press

Like in Australia, “The Left” are extremely embarrassed and “The Right” have failed to oppose it properly.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Paying For The Floods.

Monday 24 January, 2011 – 07:21 by Grant in Default

views (67)

Why don’t we just cut back on luxuries we cannot afford like “Climate Change” and the Renewable Energy Target.

These are currently costing us billions and billions of dollars and most of it is going overseas to huge multinational wind turbine and solar cell companies for no tangible result.

It’s nice to be Green, but…

It really does need to be global. There is no international agreement in prospect – none.
Carbon dioxide output is not being affected at all, here or globally.
There is no imperative – it is not urgent – they just had three very, very cold winters in the Northern hemisphere and our drought is over – we are a very long way away from any Global Warming “tipping point”.
Renewable Energy is not alternative energy. So far the only actual, demonstrated, viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear.

Who knows they may get lucky and actually invent a viable, alternative, renewable energy scource, after all they can put a man on the moon.

Waiting, waiting, waiting…

Come on now, get out there and START INVENTING.

Meanwhile, why not spend all the Climate Change billions on the floods instead and just wait and see and adapt as necessary to any human-caused climate change IF and WHEN it occurs. After all the floods are climate change – just not human caused climate change – Non-Anthropogenic Non-Global Non-Warming climate change.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Forbes Magazine Finally Notices The Fraud.

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:57 by Grant in Default

views (91)

The Bell Tells for You
Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts
Larry Bell, 12.27.10, 10:00 AM EST
The media owe us better coverage on the climate than alarmism.

” …Of course it’s mostly their parents’ fault because of the nasty CO2 they produce driving them to school in SUVs.
Lots of grown-ups are sensitive people with big hearts too. Don’t we all deserve more from the seemingly infinite media echo chamber of alarmism than those windy speculations, snow jobs and projections established on theoretical thin ice?

Weekly columnist Larry Bell is a professor at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, which will be released on Jan. 1, 2011. It can be previewed at: “.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Bad News From The Baulkans

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:55 by Grant in Default

views (72)

The Baulkans are Baulkin’
Put your guns away and get out the snow shovels. (that won’t help, but – the last ice age buried europe under kilometers of ice!)

10. 02. 10. – 09:00
Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years
Croatian Times

“A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age.

While climate change campaigners say global warming is the planet’s biggest danger, renowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice.

The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.

Professor Paar, from Croatia’s Zagreb University, has spent decades analysing previous ice ages in Europe and what caused them…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Whether Man

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:51 by Grant in Default

views (61)

Record December cold – should we get used to it?
Paul Hudson | 17:09 UK time, Monday, 20 December 2010

The short answer to your rhetorical question, Paul, is YES.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Human Factor In Flooding

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:49 by Grant in Default

views (57)

Did Australia’s obsession with global warming contribute to the Brisbane floods?
By Brendan O’Neill World Last updated: January 14th, 2011

” …But might there be another, so far overlooked, contributing factor to the floods? Might the politics of environmentalism itself – the contemporary obsession with global warming as the greatest threat to mankind – have exacerbated the impact of the flooding in Brisbane? It seems possible that Aussie politicians’ and officials’ deeply held conviction that the main problem we face today is increased heat, droughts and a lack of rainfall caused them to take their eye off the ball in Brisbane, and to be unprepared for something as relatively normal as very heavy rainfall.

It is worth looking at a document called ClimateSmart 2050, which was published in 2007 by the Queensland government. It outlines … ”

The short answer to your rhetorical question, Brendan, is YES.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

If They’re Lying About The Floods Bob?

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:47 by Grant in Default

views (101)

Perhaps they are lying about everything else as well?

Poor Bob Brown – you were on such a roll too.

And they WERE lying about the floods being caused, by “record ocean temperatures” Bob.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the ocean temperatures, they have been this hot before and they will be this hot again – after they have finished cooling a bit that is!

Global Warming Missing Energy Row Erupts As New Research Says Oceans Are Cooling
Tuesday, 11 January 2011 16:01
Leon Clifford, Reporting Climate Science

“An angry discussion has erupted over recent research which appears to suggest that the build-up of heat in the oceans that is predicted to be associated with global warming is not happening.
The research based on an analysis of ocean buoy temperature measurements suggests that the oceans cooled between 2003 and 2008, that this cooling does not support the idea that the oceans are stockpiling heat and that it does not support the idea that the Earth is in positive radiative balance – that is, acting as a net absorber of heat and therefore warming.
Physicists Robert Knox and David Douglass of the University of Rochester, New York, bluntly state in their paper that their research “does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.””… ”

BTW The raw un-“corrected” Argo Buoy (now “Floats”) data is available here, in real time, on the internet. See for yourself how much the oceans are cooling. Be carefull – dig out the actual raw data – there may be Greenie interference with this raw data – it doesn’t show what it was meant to show – bit embarrassing for them, really.

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

The Cockies Never Bought It.

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:44 by Grant in Default

views (61)

Is it time to listen to so-called “deniers”?
Posted By: JENNIFER MAROHASY on 20/01/2011 1:19:00 PM |

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment

Hansen Called Out At Last?

Sunday 23 January, 2011 – 07:43 by Grant in Default

views (114)

I refer to him as James Im-being-supressed-by-deniers Hansen after he fought off attempts by his NASA employers to stop him embarrassing the agency.
It was too late – NASA will never recover its reputation – science itself has been damaged.
The “conventional wisdom” is still in a state of amazed shock at the size of the fraud, but that will pass, and then the recriminations will set in.

I’d duck if I was you Jim, and open a Swiss bank account, and move to Siberia, the only livable place left on earth according to your ‘puter model. Don’t forget the Aeroguard, DDT is banned, the world’s worst malaria outbreak occured in balmy Siberia.

EDITORIAL: NASA extremist advocates U.S. decline
Radical green James Hansen pushes Chinese war on American economy
The Washington Times
6:28 p.m., Wednesday, January 19, 2011

” …This blog-burst followed a Hansen trip to the Middle Kingdom, where he wrote similar columns for Chinese newspapers. This is part of a continuing pattern of behavior that could be in violation of ethical rules for civil servants. On Wednesday, the Environmental Law Center of the American Tradition Institute filed a lengthy Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request suggesting Mr. Hansen’s office has countenanced employment and honoraria receipts, without legally required waivers, outside of taxpayer-funded jobs. The FOIA request also sought apparently missing “statement* of conflicts of interest by James E. Hansen” and “any internal discussion of any cautions or warnings of actual or possible disciplinary action” involving Mr. Hansen…. ”

Permalink | Comments (0) | Leave a comment


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: