Tuesday, May 31, 2011

The IPCC is Useless!

Above is a graph from a briefing paper called The Really Inconvenient Truth – or It Ain’t Necessarily So produced for the British Global Warming Policy Foundation by Lord Turnbull, the former Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service (2002 to 2005). His arguments against unilateral action by Britain to “combat Climate Change” are clear and powerful. In a nutshell, he says: “Don’t let the deeply untrustworthy IPCC decide the fate of the UK economy.”

Exactly the same thing could be said for the Australian economy uner the Gillard Green governments mad charge headlong to a carbon tax.

Like Lemmings off a cliff!

Lord Turnbull goes on to say:

"It is regrettable that the UK Parliament has proved so trusting and uncritical of the IPCC narrative, and so reluctant to question the economic costs being imposed in pursuit of decarbonisation."

The figure above shows that the linear trend between 1880 and 2000 is a continuation of the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) together with the superposed multi-decadal oscillation. It is assumed that the recovery from the LIA would continue to 2100, together with the superposed multi-decadal oscillation.

This view could explain the halting of the warming after 2000. The observed temperature in 2008 is shown by a red dot with a green arrow. It also shows the temperature rise after 2000 predicted by the IPCC. It has been suggested by the IPCC that the thick red line portion was caused mostly by the greenhouse effect, so the IPCC’s future prediction is a sort of extension of the red line. For detail, see Syun-Ichi Akasofu: On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Natural Science, 2:11  (2010)

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Kyoto Protocol Loses Four Big Nations!

France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol. The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

 The world is pulling back from carbon pricing, as people realise it doesn't work. Japan has abandoned plans for an ETS, the EU scheme is doing little to reduce emissions, but everything to cripple an already struggling economy.

The US Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade scheme with only nine states participating is a failure. That is less than one fifth of the US.

Moonbat Actress Tells YOU to Pay More Tax So SHE Feels Better! WTF?

Is My Private Jet Ready For The Hollywood Trip Yet?

Actress Cate Blanchett, who earns around $35 million per year, stars (?) in the latest scare campaign for those whose aim it is, is to reduce our standad of living. In a TV commercial she lectures ordinary Australians struggling to pay their energy bills, that we must agree to a tax that will make our lives even more difficult bur will make her feel better.

That a carbon tax will achieve precisely nothing for the climate in Australia or globally means SFA to Moonbat Blanchett! As long as she feels "good" that's all that matters.

How pathetically self centred!

And as expected, there are all the usual misrepresentations in the commercial that was paid for by The Australian Conservation Foundation, an extreme environmental pressure group (which still organises lectures in Australia to spread Al Gore's climate falsehoods - see here).

Let's go through them shall we?
  • "Yes to less carbon pollution": False. We would be saying yes to less harmless trace gas carbon dioxide.
  • "Yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out": "New money" here means government subsidies for inefficient and expensive renewable energy sources. When they are competitive in the market, then people will use them. And as for never running out, wind and solar only work when the wind blows or the sun shines, so solar "runs out" every night, and wind "runs out" when it's not windy enough.
  • "Yes to help for people struggling with bills": which are only going to get much, much higher under a pointless carbon tax. And anyway, if we compensate people, they won't change their behaviour - duh.
  • "Yes to jobs": omitting to mention that every fake "green" job on average sacrifices between 2 and 4 "proper" jobs
  • "Yes to better health for our kids": reducing harmless CO2 will make no difference to the health of our "kids" [by which I think she means "children", or are we talking about goats here? - Ed]
  • And Cate's starring role: "Finally doing something about climate change": False. A carbon tax in Australia will do NOTHING for climate change, whether you believe CO2 is to blame or not.
The ad is very good at confusing harmless carbon dioxide with "carbon pollution", smoke, soot and dirt - as demonstrated by the usual belching smoke stack photo. Because the more confusion that can be sown in the minds of the public, the more chance of pulling the wool over their eyes, and getting all these misrepresentations and falsehoods past them without being noticed.

My many thanks to Australian Climate Madeness for the information in such a concise form.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;
The carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.

We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
And I had put away
My labour, and my leisure too,
For his civility.

We passed the school where children played,
Their lessons scarcely done;
We passed the fields of gazing grain,
We passed the setting sun.

We paused before a house that seemed
A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible,
The cornice but a mound.

Since then 'tis centuries; but each
Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads
Were toward eternity.

Emily Dickinson

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Follow the Money!

It’s remarkable that, based on this assumption, the entire world is spending billions on lowering carbon dioxide, we’re imposing heavy-handed – perhaps crippling – regulations on healthy, job-providing industries.

We will be increasing the costs of home heating and food to poor people so that subsidies can be handed over to more affluent members of society fortunate enough to be in a position where they can install government-subsidized wind turbines, coal seam gas extraction, and solar panels. (When these folks are paid several times the market rate for the energy these devices produce, the extra costs increase everyone’s energy bills dramatically.)

At the heart of the present debate is the IPCC. It likes to portray itself as an objective and independent source of advice on climate change. It is, in fact, no such thing.

Its key personnel and lead authors are appointed by governments. Its Summary for Policy Makers may sound like independent scientists speaking frankly to policy makers but, in practice, the policy makers join the drafting sessions and ensure they get what their political masters want.

There is a structural flaw in the IPCC. Far from being the distillation of the work of 2,500 scientists to produce a consensus, there is a core of 40-50 at its centre who are closely related, as colleagues, pupils, teachers, reviewers of each other’s work. The IPCC has failed to operate a rigorous conflicts of interest policy under which such relationships would be disclosed.

Finally we need from our scientists more humility (“Do not claim to be wiser than you are” Romans 12), and a return to the tradition of scientific curiosity and challenge. We need more transparency and an end to attempts to freeze out dissenting voices.

There should be more recognition of what they do not know. And acceptance of the Really Inconvenient Truth – that our understanding of the natural world does not justify the certainty in which humanity is causing dangerous global warming views are expressed.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Polar Ice Caps Melt - Pigs Fly Under Harbour Bridge!

 Twisted Logic of  Climate Commission Report

This biased organisations message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. This "report" says that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius.

The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting.

The median Warmist prediction is about 4 degrees.

So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Uranus? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all.

Yet these AGW parrots constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago.
That Tim Flannery (on $180,000 of our dollars a year) and Will Steffan have not yet caught up with that must be just about the height of scientific ignorance imaginable!

The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet early in 2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen: "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades".

Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet".

"There is still much darkness in the minds of men."

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Rebirth of the Three Stooges!

 "Julia, the lies in this report are only this big but there are heaps of 'em"

The gander on the left of picture is Tim " I'm a scientist so no proof needed" Flannery, the middle goose is self explanatory and the speaking goose is Will Steffan, Labors alarmist in chief who, in January 2011 linked the Queensland floods to climate change! When it was pointed out how distasteful this comment was he denied that's what he meant.

So the first has no scientific climate credentials at all, the second is a proven liar, and the third will say the first thing that comes into his head!

Nice bunch of crooks. Anyway let's hear what Nick Minchin has to say.

"Nick Minchin has attacked a new report that declares the world is in imminent danger from human-induced climate change as offensive nonsense from known "global warming alarmists". 

 Senator Minchin, who played a key role in terminating Malcolm Turnbull's leadership over his support for emissions trading, said there was still a legitimate debate over the role of humans in climate change.

“The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed ... to further the cause of global warming alarmism,” he said following today's release of the commission's first report.

“I think everybody should take anything they say with a grain of salt,” Senator Minchin said.

“What's most offensive is (climate commissioner) Will Steffen suggesting the scientific debate is over.

“That's nonsense because there is a very lively scientific debate about the role of human-induced Co2 emissions in climate change.”

The Climate Commission report says the world has at best 10 years to cut carbon emissions or it will face dangerous atmospheric warming and sea level rises. Professor Steffen also called today for an end to “fruitless, phoney” debate, saying climate change denial is a luxury the world can no longer afford.

Senator Minchin said the new report did nothing to further Labor's case for a carbon tax.
“What I think is most frustrating in all of this is this report provides no basis for Australia acting unilaterally on a carbon tax,” he said.

“Given we are responsible for about one per cent of the world's emissions of CO2 and when it's clear that China's additional emissions over the next few decades will completely swamp any reductions in our emissions, anything Australia does will be utterly pointless and have no impact whatsoever on the global climate.”

Iceland Volcano "Under Largest Glacier in Europe"!

BBC News Europe reports that a volcanic eruption in Iceland, underneath Europe’s largest glacier, Vatnajokull , forced international flights to divert south of the north Atlantic island as an ash plume rose to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters).‬

Julia Gillards climate lapdog Chris "no proof needed I'm a scientist" Flannery issued a report this morning that sea levels in Australia will rise by one metre this century and it is all the fault of us despicable humans!

Now do you think that a volcano erupting under Europes largest glacier, with a volume of 3,100 cubic kilometres, would have some effect on sea levels?

I think so.

Was this eruption caused by said despicable humans?

I don't think so.

Were you aware that in Hawaii, the Mauna Loa Observatory, where atmospheric CO2 is measured for most of the IPCC's climate models there is an active volcano just thirty miles from the observatory.

 The volcano, Kilauea's Pu`u O`o, vent sends 3.3 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That's enough to change local CO2 concentrations without producing the kind of SO2 volumes needed to  have worldwide temperature effects. Pu`u O`o has been erupting continuously since 1983. 

Since 2008 it has been joined by a second eruption even closer to the Observatory -- from Halema`uma`u Crater at the top of Kilauea.

Anyway back to the volcanic eruption, which, in eight hours belched more CO2 into the atmosphere then humans have in the last 10 years! And this is just ONE volcanic eruption.

Hjordis Gudmundsdottir, a spokeswoman for the Isavia civil aviation authority said: "We have closed the area until we know better what effect the ash will have."

The authority said Keflavik airport, the country's main hub, would remain shut for the rest of Sunday. But officials say the eruption is unlikely to have the same impact as Eyjafjallajokul in 2010.

However University of Iceland geophysicist Magnus Tumi Gudmundsson said this was Grimsvotn's largest eruption for 100 years, "much bigger and more intensive than Eyjafjallajokull".

Y'all have a GR8 day now and don't forget to take your daily dose of Julia &Bob's Climate Elixer Fixer.

It's designed to cloud your thinking and change your mind!

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Solar Storms 'To Wreak Havoc Around the World'

Massive solar storms could have 'devastating effects' on human technology and cause a global Hurricane Katrina-style disaster when they hit a peak in two years' time, leading experts have said.

The storms are a growing threat to worldwide infrastructures like satellite communications, navigation systems, and electrical transmission equipment, says Kathryn Sullivan, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assistant secretary.

Solar storms are caused by massive explosions on the sun, and release particles that can destroy computer circuits.

A massive eruption of the sun would send waves of radiation and charged particles to Earth, damaging the satellite systems used for synchronising computers, airline navigation and phone networks.

If the storm is powerful enough it could even crash stock markets and cause power cuts that last weeks or months, experts told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The explosions release waves of X rays and ultraviolet radiation that smash into the Earth's atmosphere within minutes, disrupting radio signals and damaging the electronics of satellites.

They are followed 10 to 20 minutes later by a burst of energetic particles that cause even more havoc with satellites - and then 15 to 30 hours later by supercharged plasma, which collides with Earth's magnetic field.

Dr Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut, told a UN weather conference in Geneva that 'it is not a question of if, but really a matter of when a major solar event could hit our planet'.

And she's not the only scientist warning of the threats of solar storms.

In February, astronomers warned that we are more vulnerable now than ever before - and that the planet should prepare for a global Hurricane Katrina-style disaster.

The chances of a disruption from space are getting stronger because the sun is entering the most active period of its 11 to 12-year natural cycle.

The supercharged plasma create the aurora - or Northern Lights - and can induce electrical currents in power lines and cables.

The last solar maximum occurred in 2001.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Based in False Science

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the Anthropogenic Global Warming machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. 

He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic."
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

The Politics:
"The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant."
He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.

The Science:
"But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas"
But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.

The Modeling:
"This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s."
Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.
"For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem.
Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data."
Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:
"At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters."
And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
"We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!"
Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.

While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.

See original article here.

OK so I have to ask again, "What is the political and social agenda of The Gillard/Greens Government"?

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Carbon Wow!

I love this little vid! Julia and Bob Brown should watch it together.

NASA-Funded Group Doctors Sea Level Data

Before the introduction of satellite measurements, sea levels were measured using guages fixed to jettys and wharfs similar to the one above.  Have a look at the different angles of the supports of the above structure.

 Above is a closeup of the actual guage affixed to the jetty.

Over time jettys have been known to sink into the waterway bottom. That explains why, in one instance in the US, a guage showed a sea level rise of eleven inches in one year and yet a guage a few hundred miles away showed a rise of just 0.03 of an inch!  0.03" was pretty much inline with most other measurements for that year. 

Obviously a mistake so the 11"  measurement should have been removed from the data?

Well that didn't happen, the 0.03" was the measurement removed and the 11" measurement left in because it better suited the alarmists agenda!

A great way to "prove" that sea levels were rising! 

And these folk call themselves scientists?

Catastrophic sea level rise is one of the most valued hole cards played by alarmists in the global warming debate. 

In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore showed computer generated images of what Manhattan would look like if sea level rose 20 feet. Building on this theme, elevation charts of coastal cities have become a staple in global warming presentations by Al Gore wannabes. But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? 

If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data!

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. 

As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.

Human civilization readily adapted to the seven inches of sea level rise that occurred during the twentieth century. Alarmists, however, claim global warming will cause sea level to rise much more rapidly during the present century. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models project approximately 15 inches of sea level rise during the 21st century. 

That’s more than double the sea level rise that occurred during the twentieth century. Now the vast majority of the 20th century measurements were not from satellite altimetry data they were from manual readings on jettys and wharfs.

A more “mainstream” prediction among alarmists is 3 feet of sea level rise this century. Some alarmists have even projected 20 feet of global sea level rise this century.

Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. 

This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.
The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. 

However, it is very inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for rising land mass.

The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century. While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.

Even under this scenario, sea level is not rising nearly as fast as IPCC and other alarmists have predicted. Nevertheless, a quick Google search of “sea level” and “global warming” shows an overwhelming number of items claiming dramatic and accelerating sea level rise, with very few items reporting that alarmist predictions and computer models are being contradicted by real-world data. The newly adjusted NASA-funded sea level data will merely add fuel to the errant fire.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Blindspots At the IPCC.

Earlier this week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 26-page summary of an upcoming 1,000-page report about renewable energy. While perusing this document I was reminded of remarks by an anonymous IPCC insider who answered a questionnaire last year.

According to this individual, the IPCC sees the world through a distorted lens. That distorted lens now dominates the way most of the planet thinks about climate change:
A relatively incoherent narrative…has been established by the IPCC, and scientific research in the field proceeds by embellishing this established narrative. And the end result is that we are not asking the right questions in the field of climate research… [bold added, see page 97 of this 678-page PDF]
IPCC spokespeople (and myriad scientists associated with this organization) have declared that we face a climate crisis and must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions dramatically in order to prevent horrible things from happening.

But if the IPCC really believes this, why isn’t it developing realistic plans to de-carbonize as quickly as possible? Why isn’t it systematically evaluating courses-of-action A, B, and C? That way we’d all have a better understanding of what our full range of options are, what the strengths and shortcomings of each happen to be, and what the trade-offs look like.

Instead, the IPCC has adopted a moralistic view of the world. There is “good” energy (renewables) and “bad” energy (non-renewables). It only wants to talk about the first category – thus this new 1,000-page report – even though the second category includes options that could dramatically improve the situation in the short term.

For example, the International Energy Agency has observed that:
Countries such as Australia, China, India, Poland and South Africa produce between 69% and 94% of their electricity and heat through the combustion of coal. [bold added, see p. 11 of this 130-page PDF]
In the 21st century people are not about to turn their back on either heat or electricity.

Last week the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation released a 36-page report titled The Shale Gas Shock. Written by respected science writer Matt Ridley, with a foreword by eminent physicist Freeman Dyson, the report concludes that replacing coal with shale gas would dramatically reduce not only CO2 emissions, but bona fide pollutants as well. As Ridley writes:
…unlike burnt coal, burnt shale gas includes no sulphur dioxides, no mercury, and fewer nitrogen oxides.
Ridley reports that natural gas leads to fewer human fatalities than does coal mining, does far less damage to the natural world (no tunneling or mountaintop removal is required), and is significantly friendlier to wildlife than industrial wind installations.

So how many times do you suppose the term shale gas comes up in the 26-page summary of the IPCC’s new 1,000-page report? That’s right – not even once.

A world in which our leaders genuinely believe humanity’s future is at stake would be one in which governments would be explaining the benefits and promise of shale gas to the public.

Instead, the viewpoint of environmentalists dominates the discussion on shale gas.

We need no further proof that the environmentalist mindset also dominates the IPCC than the fact that this new report appears to completely ignore the shale gas revolution.

Monday, May 9, 2011

Owen Gun

The Owen Gun, the best sub-machine carbine of World War II. Invented, designed and manufactured in Wollongong. 

Australia, that was at that time under threat of invasion by the Japanese. 

As used, by Lysaghts to train staff in assemble-diss-assembly at the Springhill Works, Port Kembla and Lysaghts Newcastle. These Instrucitonal Wall Chart Posters were also used by the Australian Forces from 1942 to 1967 for training purposes. 

These Owen Gun Wall Charts are printed on a banner vinyl, so do not need framing or laminating. Great for Returned Service Club, Rifle Clubs, Behind the bar, in the reloading room. Complete with the inventors Evelyn Owen signature. Two vinyl sizes.

Interested? Get in touch with Ron Owen at Owen Guns in Gympie.

Global Warming Is A Fraud!

"If we were to shut down industry and energy-intensive agriculture in the way the "global warming" fraudsters propose, the worlds population would collapse far below its present level of over six billion. This genocide is the actual intention behind this hoax, brought to you by the same financial oligarchy which created globalisation."

Laurence Hecht, Editor,
21st Century Science & Technology magazine.

The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre- 1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957.1

The IPCCs hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO2 concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Becks work con- firms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherrypicked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Suns heat output.

In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gores), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel Prize winners. Measurements by these chemists showed that todays atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) has been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO2 levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.

There were also measurements, accurate to within 3%, of 375.0 ppm in 1885 (Hempel in Dresden), 390.0 in 1866 (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO2 concentrations. The data reviewed by Beck came mainly from the Northern Hemisphere, geographically spread from Alaska over Europe to Poona, India, nearly all taken from rural areas or the periphery of towns without contamination by industry, at a measuring height of approximately two meters above ground. Evaluation of chemical methods revealed a maximum error of 3% down to 1% in the best cases.

By contrast, the measurements hoked up from ice cores, show a rather steady increase in CO2 levels, conveniently corresponding to the preconceived idea that increasing industrial activity has produced a steady CO2 increase. As Becks collaborator, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, former senior advisor to the Polish radiation monitoring service and a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, has shown, the gaseous inclusions in ice cores have no validity as historical proxies for atmospheric concentrations. The continual freezing, refreezing, and pressurization of ice columns drastically alters the original atmospheric concentrations of the gas bubbles.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Ban Guns = Bad Idea

Blaming violence on guns and fanning hysteria over deaths from firearms are staples of anti-gun propaganda.
Media help gun-control zealots spread false information that gun ownership and self-defense are certain paths to injury and death. Handgun Control, Inc., gives erroneous advice that if you are attacked, the best way to avoid injury "is to put up no defense." 

Anti-gun zealots blame the actions of criminals on guns and argue that disarming law-abiding gun-owners is the best way to reduce the crime rate. 

Scholars such as Gary Kleck, Don Kates and John Lott have demonstrated the falsity of these claims. 

Now comes an important new book from Harvard University Press. "Guns and Violence" by Bentley College history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm brings new evidence that guns reduce violence. Malcolm's carefully researched book is a study of guns and violence in England from the Middle Ages through the present day. When the English were armed to the teeth, violent crime was rare. Now that the English are disarmed, violent crime has exploded. Indeed, crime in England is out of control. 

Did you know that defensive gun use prevents far more crimes than the police? National polls of defensive gun use by private citizens in the US indicate that as many as 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals.

In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year believe they saved a life by being armed. Contrary to Handgun Control's propaganda, in less than 1 percent of confrontations do criminals succeed in taking the gun from the intended victim.

Did you know that the testimony of incarcerated felons supports the large number of defensive gun uses? Thirty-four percent of felons said they were scared off, wounded or captured by victims who turned out to be armed.
Convicted felons say that they are more deterred by armed victims than by the police. 

In the United States, where roughly 50 percent of households are armed, only 13 percent of burglaries occur with residents at home. In contrast, in Britain, where homeowners are disarmed, 50 percent of home burglaries take place with the residents present.

Gun-control zealots claim that the availability of guns is the primary cause of homicides. Between 1973 and 1994, the number of guns in private ownership in the United States rose by 87 million. During this period, both the homicide rate and the percent of homicides committed with firearms dropped. 

Nov. 8, 2002 Orange County Register Editorial

One of the biggest fallacies of gun-control supporters is their idea that guns in and of themselves are an evil that needs to be wiped out. That idea motivates gun controllers to support any number of limitations and regulations geared toward reducing the raw number of guns in the public's hands.

But an attack in Laguna Hills recently shows how beneficial gun use can be, when used by potential victims protecting themselves against an armed attacker.
Dana Kiefer and her 10-year-old daughter, Hana, were at Ms. Kiefer's parents' house when Dana's ex-husband Eric Kiefer broke into the home wielding a hatchet. Mr. Kiefer had a history of drug abuse and of abusing Ms. Kiefer during their marriage. He had a restraining order placed on him to stay away from her.

The court decree didn't stop him from assaulting his ex-wife, and it certainly didn't stop him from breaking into his ex-in-laws' house, grabbing his daughter, then trying to force her to drink some form of caustic liquid, according to news reports.

Fortunately, Ms. Kiefer's boyfriend fatally shot Mr. Kiefer with a shotgun, thus ending a confrontation that could have cost five people their lives. It's the latest example of what John R. Lott Jr. calls the underreported story of citizens who use guns to protect themselves from criminals.

"When was the last time that you heard the national evening news reporting about a citizen using a gun to save lives?" Mr. Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," wrote in a newspaper article. "Few realize that people use guns defensively to stop about 2 million crimes a year, according to national surveys."

That's an astounding statistic. In a sense, gun-controllers use a utopian argument for banning or limiting guns. They assume that if guns were eliminated, then people who would no longer be able to use them for evil. Therefore, there wouldn't be any need for average citizens to have guns to protect themselves and their families.

But guns will always be with us. There are millions of guns in the United States, so it's hard to imagine eliminating them all, especially from criminals.

Mr. Kiefer was attacking his ex-wife and daughter with a hatchet. Without guns, the attacker with the biggest knife or strongest physique would succeed. Guns are a great equalizer - which is why even some feminists are coming around to the pro-gun rights argument.

An Orange County judge told the Register that the Laguna Hills incident shows that some people who violate restraining orders need to be held in custody until a judge can evaluate their mental health.

That's a good point. But it's not enough. Innocent people shouldn't have to risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones by going unarmed and hoping the justice system will get its act together.

Guns can save lives. If you doubt that, think about what might have happened to Dana and Hana Kiefer had their household been unarmed.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Media Scrambles As Bin Laden Story Crumbles

Bin Laden Look Alike Swims Away After "Burial at Sea"!

'A poorly photo-shopped image of a dead bin Laden embarrassed a large swath of the world press and several US Senators, too. Shortly after newspapers and television stations around the globe ran the image, it was exposed as a shoddy forgery that had been circulating for years.

Now Obama said he “decided” not to release any pictures — or any other evidence that any element of the story is true, for that matter.

And then there’s the burial issue. The Obama administration originally claimed no country would accept the body; so, it was dumped at sea — Mafia style — in accordance with what Obama alleged were Islamic traditions and customs.

When prominent Muslim theological leaders repudiated that lie and noted that it was actually a violation of Islamic tenets to bury Osama bin Laden in the ocean, the new line was that the decision was to avoid the creation of a “shrine.”

That lie fell apart, too, when it was widely reported that bin Laden’s brand of Islam calls for unmarked graves — building any sort of shrine would have been blasphemous. So far, no new excuses have been concocted for allegedly feeding the body to the fish.'

Read more: Media Scrambles as Bin Laden Story Crumbles

Obama is up for re-election soon. You didn't know that?

He had an unbelievably low popularity rating. You didn't know that?

Since the Bin Laden Killed story surfaced his popularity has skyrocketed. You didn't know that either?

I bet Julia wished she had a long dead terrorist she could ressurect and "kill" to lift her popularity.

Maybe she should email Obama and he would surely find one for her!

Thursday, May 5, 2011

CIA Admits: No Live Footage of Raid!!!

The head of the CIA admitted yesterday that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events. 

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

A staged photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: "Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

"We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound."

Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Oh What a Co-incidence!

About every three months or so the mainstream media drop some little snippet about Al Queda gearing up for something or other but mostly we don't even see the news item. Probably because we are sick of the media scare campaign and the last twenty or so Al Queda warnings proved non events!

Now we have the man without a credible US birth certificate telling us he watched Bin Laden killed on helmet cam by US forces. These US forces, we are told, shot dead the evilist man in the world in an attack on his heavily fortified hideout.

The evilist man in the world, who was responsible for killing more than 3000 people on 9/11,was unarmed when shot dead?

His body was then quickly buried at sea?

Back to those MSM snippets. Last week an "un-named Al Queda source" was qouted as saying in an article from India's Daily Bahskar.com "WikiLeaks: Nuke hellstorm if Osama is caught or killed, says al-Qaeda", first posted April 27th 2011.

So out of the blue we get a hint that Bin Laden is going to be killed/captured and when this happens we are warned that Al Queda will unleash a nuclear attack. More information was leaked on MSM that the attack would be in Europe.

Putting the MSM announcements together, Europe is about to have a nuclear bomb set off.

Which country of the G-20 is bucking at the bit of implementation of the NWO?

Which country refused to be a part of the 'No Fly Zone' over non-IMF Libya?

Which country refuses to put boots on the ground with NATO against Libya?

Which country had a double rotar head-of-state helicopter accident as a warning three days after saying "no more"?

If you have (G-) 20 lackeys doing your murdering and pillaging for you, and one of these 20 says "no", what do you do to keep the other 19 back in line doing your NWO hegemony bidding?

You come down as hard as you can on the abstainer as a motive for the other 19 not to question your criminal authority.

A nuclear bomb somewhere in europe by "al Quaida".

Where would this device be exploded for maximum fear effect?

I hope I am wrong!