Articles 07/08

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government feel sick.For full article click here

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn’t warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

Sea ice now isn’t melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren’t increasing and the rain in Australia hasn’t stopped falling.

What’s more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.

In fact, it’s even a bit cooler. So, dude, where’s my global warming?

These graphs should in fact be good news for the Government and all the other warming preachers who warned we were doomed by our gases, which were heating the world to hell.

Now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can at last stop sweating about the warming terrors he told us were coming – the horrific droughts, the dengue fever, the malaria, the devastation to our land and economy.

And he can announce that, hey, emergency over for now. His emissions trading scheme will go into deep freeze while he checks this good news.

As for his promise this week to make your power bills go up $200 a year to stop global warming? His promise to make even food more expensive? To put gassy companies out of business, and their workers out of a job?

Cancel all that. As you were, soldier. Good news has come from the front.

But now you can see why these graphs terrify Rudd, who has never admitted to a single fact they contain.

You think he dares admit he panicked you for no good reason? Wasted countless millions of dollars?

Yet the facts are stark: The world simply isn’t warming as he and his pet scientists said.

That’s why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

That’s why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared “I am a sceptic”, because “we don’t really know what the actual effect on the climate is”.

And it’s why the American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

So let me go through my seven graphs that help to explain why even Nobel Prize winners question what Rudd keeps claiming — that man is warming the world, and dangerously.

The main graph is from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office and one of the four bodies measuring world temperature.

As you see, since 1998 — an unusually warm year thanks to the “El Nino” pool of warmer water in the Pacific — the world’s temperature dropped back to a steady plateau, followed by a few years of cooling.

The second graph confirms both the halt in warming, and then cooling. It’s from another of those four bodies, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which monitors the troposphere — from the ground to 12km altitude.

Only one of the four, in fact, claims temperatures are still rising. That’s NASA, whose program is run by Dr James Hanson, Al Gore’s global warming adviser and a controversial catastrophist whose team’s reworking of data has been heavily criticised for exaggerating any heating.

But before I go on, a caveat: This recent cooling doesn’t disprove the theory that man is warming the world.

Ten years is too short to be sure of a trend. Natural factors may for now be countering the effect of our gases.

Then again, the theory that man has warmed the world is based on a rise in temperature over a period that’s not much longer — from just 1975 to 1998.

And the computer climate models that scientists use to predict catastrophic warming a century from now somehow never predicted a cooling that’s happening right now.

And these are the models Rudd is betting on with our jobs and cash.

The third graph shows another surprise those models never predicted: the seas have stopped rising.

The waters have crept up for at least 150 years, since the world started to thaw from the Little Ice Age, and well before any likely man-made warming.

But the climate models predicted that a big rise in emissions from all those cars, power plants and factories since World War II would cause an equally big rise in the seas, swelling them as much as 59cm by 2100.

This wasn’t scary enough for alarmists like Al Gore, though, who claimed whole cities could in fact be drowned under 6m of ocean.

But the satellites that have checked sea levels since 1992 find the seas have instead fallen over the past two years. Again, this could be a blip. But it isn’t what the models predicted.

The fourth graph seems to confirm a cooling. Forget media scares about a melting North Pole; sea ice has grown so fast in the southern hemisphere there is now more ice in the world than is usual, says the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Graph five punctures another scare. No, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones – or more tornadoes or hurricanes anywhere. Nor is their proof that cyclones are getting worse, says the American Meteorological Society.

And warming hasn’t stopped our rain, either, despite media hype about a “one-in-a-100 year drought”. See the Bureau of Meteorology records in graph six. It’s just bad luck that the fickle rain now tends to fall where it’s not needed most.

And, please, can we drop that old fiction that the world was never warmer? It’s a false claim made popular by a 2001 report of the IPCC, the United Nations’ climate group, which ran a graph, shaped like a hockey stick, claiming there was no warming for millennia until humans last century gassed up their world.

In fact, that “hockey stick” is now discredited, and last year Dr Craig Loehle, of the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, argued that using tree rings to work out past temperatures was clearly unreliable.

He instead produced a graph – No. 7 – of past temperatures using all other accepted proxies.

You see his results (which for statistical reasons stop at 1935): they show humans lived through a medieval period that was warmer than even today. This was a period that historical accounts confirm was so warm that Greenland farmers grew crops on

land now under snow, and British ones grew grapes.

But I repeat: the world may yet warm again, and soon, although scientists at Leibnitz Institute and Max Planck Institute last month predicted it won’t for at least another decade. If at all, say solar experts worried by a lack of sun spots.

But even if none of my graphs disproves the theory that man is causing dangerous warming, they should at least make you pause.

They should at least make you open to other theories of climate change, like that of Dr Henrik Svensmark, head of Denmark’s Centre for Sun-Climate Research, who thinks changes in cosmic rays, which affect clouds, may explain much of the recent warming. And now the cooling, too.

But, above all, when that man with the sandwich board comes tugging at your sleeve again, shouting, “Quick, help me save the world – or die”, hang on to your wallet, friend.

Give that urger my seven graphs instead, and ask him how many more years of no warming will it take before he admits it really is too soon to panic.

Discuss this with other readers on Andrew’s blog:


NZCPR Forum 
Opinion piece by Prof. David Bellamy

28 June 08
Cows and Sheep May Safely Graze?

As a youngster in a post war London I was brought up on lamb and anchor butter from New Zealand.

My first dabble into TV commercials was with WOOLMARK NZ, in what became a successful attempt to slow down the ingress of synthetic fibre into the carpet market. I still meet sheep farmers around the world who greet me their thanks and a pint of beer.  

I still delight in your butter and lamb which I can buy in my local supermarket, the latter at half the price of the local product sold in our village butchers shop.

What a strange world we live in now bombarded with the rhetoric of food miles let alone tourist miles.

Hence I beg leave to put in this plea for the good husbandry of these two ruminants.

Cows and sheep are Mother Nature’s own brand of internal combustion engines. They get their energy by “burning” cellulose, the same stuff wood is made of.

During their life they produce all sorts of useful things; butter, cheeses, curds, dripping, gelatine, hide, horn, yoghurt, lamb, lard, milk, mutton, tallow, whey and wool.

Each one is a solar powered, self building, repairing and regenerating mobile mini supermarket. The solid waste from which is recycled, returning organic compost to the soil.

At the end of their useful lives any potential waste can be turned into heat and power.

Both of these amazing mammals depend on teeming hordes of ever smaller, internal combustion engines, (mini beasts, yeasts and bacteria) that live within their complex stomachs.

Chewing is not enough to crack open the tough cellulose packaging that wrap the goodies in each and every plant cell.

To release the energy rich fuels, (sugars, proteins and fats) stored within the cellulose boxes that make up the grasses and herbs, they need the power of the digestive enzymes of all their internal helpmates.

Without these, all cud chewing ruminants and non-vegetarian humans could not gainfully graze.

Please note even cows and sheep are not strict herbivores because they can and do digest these tiny animals relegating them to the ranks of the omnivores.

Exhaust from these internal combustion engines both large and small contain carbon dioxide and methane and thereby hangs my tale.

The molecules of carbon that make up their flesh, wool, hide, burps and farts is not fossil carbon.  

It was sequestered from their pasture rarely longer than a year and most within a few days before their release back into the atmosphere.

Although somewhat modified by human influence they are part of the 97% of the main cycle of carbon dioxide that makes the living world go round. Not the 3% that the global warmers say are tipping the World, towards an omnivore driven armageddon.

Please note that long before the days of New Zealand lamb the world’s paddy fields, termite mounds and rotting organic matter were producing their fare share of greenhouse gasses including methane.

The IPCC reckon there is an annual production of 600 million tonnes of methane of which 25 million tonnes remain in the atmosphere. An increase of 25 million tonnes would raise the temperature by a mere 0.005 of a degree centigrade.

Not much to worry about, especially if you take into account, the fact that since 1999 the rate of increase of atmospheric methane has slowed down dramatically. Surely these ruminants should be left to safely graze.

Unless they are strict vegetarians, I beg the carbon cops not to tax these exemplary carbon trading internal combustion engines that do such wonderful things by chewing the cud.

The green dream of bio fuels has already turned into a nightmare of starvation across the poor world while devastating local biodiversity.

Since the far off days of good old British mutton and horse drawn milk carts, more and more small farmers have gone to the wall of extinction. With ever larger farms worked by machines not people, soils have lost much of their structure and hence their self-draining and nutrient retaining capacity.

In consequence they need massive applications of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides all of which guzzle fossil fuels in their production and application.

The good news is that over the past 25 years farmers both great and small have joined forces with the Queen Elizabeth 2 Trust, DOC, conservation groups and other local and national stakeholders. Together they are working wonders of what I like to call the green renaissance.

Together they are dealing with the many feral plants and animals, while putting their patch back into more bio diverse and hence more sustainable working order.

My own small part in this was when I had the privilege to work with TVNZ and Massey University on a book and TV series called “Moa’s Ark” ready for the Treaty of Waitangi Year.

I also made another famous TV advert “Old Mans Beard Must Go” and was there both at the start and completion of the world boggling mouse proof fence around the mountain-tops of Maungatautari.

My case rests, when it comes to the future of New Zealand butter, beef, lamb, leather, mutton and wool please don’t fart in the face of common sense.

If you don’t believe a pommy botanist then log on the truly luscious fat tail from Viv Forbes a farmer in Oz:  

If you would like to comment on this issue please click >>>





















Imagine there’s no warming …Joseph Farah

Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 06/08


The UN climate change numbers hoax


Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom-

Get the Facts on James Hansen 


Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change


Ron FraserColumnist


Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science


The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming

Inhofe Statement on Climate Tax Bill’s Demise

Weblink to Release:

Click Here For Senator Inhofe’s Statement on Demise of Climate Tax Bill:

WSJ – Climate Change Collapse – June 06, 2008
Excerpt: Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face. Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. “With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,” says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. “This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.” 

The Politico: Dems yank global warming bill – June 6, 2008

Excerpt: Apparently three days of debate was enough for what many senators called “the most important issue facing the planet.”  With little chance of winning passage of a sweeping 500-page global warming bill, the Senate Democratic leadership is planning to yank the legislation after failing to achieve the 60-vote threshold needed to move the bill to the next stage. After a 48-36 vote on the climate change bill, the Senate is likely to move on to a separate energy debate next week. The legislation collapsed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the poor timing of debating a bill predicted to increase energy costs while much of the country is focused on $4-a-gallon gas. On top of that, a number of industrial state Democrats like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio were uncomfortable with the strong emissions caps that would have created a new regime of regulations for coal, auto and other manufacturing industries. Republicans, for the most part, held firm against a bill they said would cost billions in regulations while pushing the cost of gas higher. Seven Republicans, mostly moderates, voted for the procedural motion on the legislation while four Democrats voted against it.


Global Warming Politics: – The ‘Global Warming’ Mad House – By UK Professor Philip Stott – June 6, 2008

The ‘global warming’ mad house is flourishing! I have rarely known a couple of days in which so many ‘global warming’ foibles and follies have been exposed for the nonsense that they are. Here is my Friday round-up for you to savour: First, and by far the most significant, the debate on the climate-change bill, the Climate Tax Bill, in the U.S. Senate has been reduced to a farce, with even many Democrats now wanting to kill it off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Indeed, we may have to witness the bizarre spectacle of Republicans trying to prolong the debate in order to embarrass Democrats even further. […] Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, is reported as observing: “‘This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.’” […] Indeed. ‘Global warming’ is thus off track on every front, from the railways of the UK to the floor of the U.S. Senate. When will this ‘global warming’ madhouse be closed down and confined to the dustbin of history? Or trash can?


Associated Press – $45 trillion needed to combat warming – June 06, 2008

Excerpt: The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a “energy revolution” that would greatly reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.


The Washington Independent: Senate Kills Climate Change Bill – June 6, 2008

Excerpt: The Senate this morning brought an early if expected end to the chamber’s global warming debate, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to kill a GOP filibuster. Sixteen senators were absent during the vote, including likely presidential nominees John McCain, who opposes the bill for what he considers a dearth of nuclear power provisions, and Barack Obama, who supports the proposal, which boasts a 66 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.


NYT Blog – James Hansen: Tax C02 Emitters; Pay Citizens – June 06, 2008

Excerpt: Even as Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to move forward with global warming legislation today, other approaches to federal climate action have already begun to percolate. James E. Hansen, the NASA climate expert who has long been a bellwether for global warming campaigners, has strongly endorsed one of the less-popular options — a variant on the “cap and dividend” system for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. (This is very different from the “cap and trade” mechanism in the blocked Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill, which would invest revenue in a host of ways, with little money returning directly to taxpayers.)


Excerpt: India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Namo Narain Meena said Thursday.’India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,’ Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day. Though India has no commitment to reduce the global warming gases under the Kyoto Protocol, in recent climate change conferences many developed countries have said India needs to reduce the greenhouse burden.


Excerpt: AUSTRALIAN industries may be crippled if they are forced to meet ambitious targets for tackling climate change, the Rudd Government has been warned.
The Queensland Government, Australian Workers Union and big business across the nation fear forcing businesses to pay for the pollution they create would cause economic upheaval.The State Government fired a warning to Canberra in Tuesday’s budget, urging it not to set over-ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions for fear of destabilising the economy.


National Post – As Goes the Economy, So Goes Environmentalism – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: If truth is the first casualty of war, then environmental concern is the first casualty of economic recession. Surveys of Canadian voters showed the environment to be their first or second concern in 1989-90. At that time, though, the economy was booming, pumping out tens of thousands of new jobs a month. A year-and-a-half later, with the economy locked in the worst recession in 60 years, government finances were imploding, jobs disappearing and foreclosure wolves circling, the environment vanished from the top 10. There will always be a small, hard-core voter base motivated by eco-issues. They’re not worried about losing their jobs in an environmentalist-driven recession. They know that if they get laid off from the alternative music store, they can always go clerk at the Gaia Vegan Market or Wiccans ‘R’ Us. But for most people, the environment is a luxury good — easily expendable when their livelihoods and homes are threatened.


Excerpt: Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown’s leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions. Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called ‘deeply unpopular and unenvironmental’ changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers’ Questions: ‘If you don’t get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.’


Washington Post – Vote on Climate Bill is Blocked in Senate – June 06, 2008
Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices.


Washington Post – U.S. Senate Democrats May Pull Climate Bill – June 06, 2008
Excerpt: If this week’s Senate debate on a proposed cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases was supposed to be a dress rehearsal for climate legislation, things are not looking too good for opening night. Although parliamentary maneuvers could still extend the debate into next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) faced the prospect of failure in a bid to end debate on amendments to the climate bill this morning. In that event, he was expected to seek withdrawal of the entire measure, to the relief of some Democrats from coal-producing or heavy industrial states. Some Democrats were worried yesterday that the GOP might try to block withdrawal of the legislation to prolong a debate that many Democrats think no longer works to their political benefit. 

WSJ – Climate Bill Stalls in Senate – June 06, 2008

Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71% by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices. “It’s a huge tax increase,” argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.” – Cost ineffective: Warming bill would hit Oklahoma hard – June 06, 2008

Excerpt: This would be done through a cap-and-trade system under which businesses and industries meeting federal emissions caps could trade or sell excess capacity to those exceeding them.

That means new bureaucracies, new programs — more than 40 by some estimates — and the complications that routinely go with most new government initiatives. That concerns Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa. “The climate solution should not require an overhaul of our economy and those decisions should not be made by nameless bureaucrats,” Inhofe says. As it is, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis warns of cumulative losses to the national economy of more than $4.5 trillion by 2030 — even as leading global polluter China lets its economy run unencumbered.

 Associated Press – Economy First: EU Governments Split on Emissions Target – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: EU governments were split Thursday over the best way for the 27-nation bloc to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Germany said a plan to slash car emissions by 2012 was unfair to its automobile industry, which makes vehicles that tend to be faster, bigger, heavier and more polluting than those of other EU nations. Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, said it was harder for Germany than Italy which made light, small cars that already just about meet the 2012 emission limit. “We have to be honest and open with each other here,” Gabriel said. “We have very different interests.”

Peanuts! Tough Climate Goals Only Cost $45 Trillion by 2050 – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: A goal to halve planet-warming carbon emissions by 2050, similar to an aim Japan is urging G8 leaders to agree next month, would add $45 trillion to global energy bills, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday. “It’s a lot of money,” IEA analyst Peter Taylor told a meeting on the fringes of a climate conference in Germany, previewing the agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives report to be published in Japan on Friday. “It implies a completely different energy system,” he said. For example, electricity from renewable sources such as hydropower and the wind would reach close to half all power production, compared to 18 percent now, Taylor told Reuters.

# # #


Marc Morano

Communications Director________________________________________________________________________________

Political Diary  Climate-Change Collapse



Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 05/08


NIWA scientists have become propagandists




‘Fewer hurricanes’ as world warms

Who Pays? Dr Muriel Newman


Dispute over climate sceptic uni grant


For Immediate Release.                                                                                                    4 May 2008                                                   


“Emissions Trading – A Weapon of Mass Taxation.”


The Carbon Sense Coalition today described the proposed Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as “A Weapon of Mass Taxation”.


In a submission to the Garnaut Enquiry, the chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, claimed that the scheme would have no effect whatsoever on world climate but every Australian would feel the oppressive cost and dislocations caused by it.


“Staggering estimates of the costs of forcing industry to purchase permits to emit CO2 are just starting to emerge: Germany (100 billion euros), Australia (up to $22 billion), New Zealand ($4.5 billion). The amazing fact is that even though consumers in many countries will bear oppressive costs, there may be no reduction whatsoever in CO2 emissions, and no beneficial effects on the world climate.


(The Chairman of the Australian Taxation Institute, Mr Michael Dirkis, recently estimated that the direct tax cost of an Emissions Trading Scheme could be $22 billion or 40% of company tax receipts.)


“The immediate tax revenues collected from the forced sale of the emission permits will just be the start of the ETS tax pain. This tax will feed immediately into the prices for electricity, transport, food, cement and metal products. It will be like spreading the costs of petrol excise taxes into everything we buy.


“But to administer the whole complicated scheme, with tentacles into every business in the land, will require a stifling bureaucratic overhead of administrators, consultants, regulators, statisticians, tax collectors, auditors, inspectors, enforcers and prosecutors. At a time when real industry is suffering from a shortage of labour and services, all of these people and resources will be sucked into an ETS black hole. This bureaucratic burden is yet another hidden tax.


“Then to cope with the vast increase in green/red tape, the business world will build a matching unproductive empire of corporate bureaucrats charged with complying with all the new laws, statistics, reports, taxes, regulations and audits.


“All these morbid results will be followed by the growth of a parasitic class of traders, speculators and bankers already gearing up to profit from the creation of paper carbon credits – another addition to the hidden ETS tax burden paid for by consumers, taxpayers or shareholders.


“Then there is the insidious effect on the supply and cost of food.


“The Ethanol Obsession is already diverting grains and other foods to produce motor fuel. This stupid policy of subsidising or mandating the use of ethanol and biofuels will gobbled up rapidly increasing quantities of corn, wheat, oils and sugar. Farmers all over the world are diverting land from food production and destroying forest land to produce motor fuel.


“An even more ominous threat to future food supplies is the growing plague of sterile carbon-credit plantations which are already smothering food farm land and native pastures at an alarming rate. Every farming community is watching with increasing alarm as families leave, food production ceases, farm houses are abandoned and the land is covered by a monoculture of unproductive artificial plantations. Once the ETS becomes operational, this destructive process will multiply. Some hungry future generation will have the job of eradicating this crop of woody weeds for a new race of pioneering farmers.


“Even more insidious is the fact that schemes like carbon sequestration and carbon credit plantations will rob the atmosphere of the life-producing carbon dioxide. For 100 years, the green revolution has produced more food from the same land, partly because of the free carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by burning carbon fuels. If the world managed to be so stupid to limit or stop man’s emissions of this plant food, he would surely starve all plants (and himself) – the ultimate tax blunder.


“When people notice all food products becoming scarce and expensive, they should remember the real villains – Al Gore with his baseless hysteria about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the Garnaut/Rudd emissions trading racket.


“Moreover, if Australia decided to become part of a world ETS, the net result will be a huge transfer of carbon credit money into dubious schemes in the third world, so Australians will never see any benefits or jobs from the spending of their own carbon tax money.


“Another inevitable result of a carbon ETS will be to force-feed inefficient, costly and environmentally destructive methods of generating electricity such as wind and solar. This will sop up capital to build these invasive facilities, and push up the cost of electricity from such expensive, intermittent, scattered and unreliable power sources. At the same time, low cost reliable concentrated power from coal will see its share of the electricity market decline – more collateral damage from the ET Weapon of Mass Taxation.


“Finally, shareholders and employees will suffer as plants and facilities made unprofitable by the cost of emissions permits or carbon taxes are prematurely scrapped or mothballed.


“It is amazing that our government seems prepared to turn this ET Weapon of Mass Taxation onto the Australian people without any proof that reduction in man’s emissions of CO2 will bring any benefits, and without telling the Australian people what the scheme will cost.


As an American report on emissions reductions concluded recently: “A severe global emissions-reduction policy through emissions trading could turn out to be the costliest public policy mistake in human history with costs vastly exceeding the benefits”.


“Two things must be done before saddling Australians with such costs.


“Firstly, set up a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the science of whether CO2 is a driver of world temperature.


“And secondly, prepare an independent cost-benefits analysis, prepared to the standard defined by ASIC for a prospectus required by law for any corporation proposing to raise such huge amounts of money from taxpayers, consumers and shareholders.”


For full details of the submission by the Carbon Sense Coalition to the Garnaut Enquiry see:





 935 words



Authorised by:


Viv Forbes, BScApp, FAusIMM, FSIA


The Carbon Sense Coalition

MS 23

Rosewood Qld

0754 640 533

Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 04/08


The Letters Editor,

Western Mail.

 3rd May 2008.

 Dear Editor,

 Would Gordon James of Friends of the Earth reveal why he uses outdated information on climate change? Average temperature is not rising. Indeed, satellites, weather balloons and data from UK Hadley Climate Research Unit all show sharp falls.


FoE’s website baldly claims, with no scientific proof at all, that: “Climate change or global warming is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide (C02) and other polluting gases in our atmosphere”. That was a theory not a fact and is now firmly disproved.


CO2  is not a pollutant Mr James; it is a trace gas vital to all life and at historically low levels. For years FoE and others have warned that 1998 was the hottest year on record and was proof of man-made warming. The last ten years have seen no warming so they tell us that is natural variation. One year warmer, our fault; ten years cooler, nature!


Not one of the IPCC climate models on which the man-made warming myth is based suggested ten years of cooling; they all said rising CO2 levels would lead to higher temperatures. Nature has proved them wrong so yet another model is created which says we are still warming but it is masked by….errm…cooling. What dangerous tripe.


Friends of the Earth have received huge funding from the leftist, high-tax-and-control EU.  The European Commission handed FoE Europe £562,000 in 2006.

Conservative MEP Roger Helmer says such funding is “anti-democratic”. “In funding such NGOs’ the commission can be seen to be responding to apparently independent, voluntary groups while, in fact, it is actually paying to have itself lobbied to take actions which, in the main, it would wish to take anyway.”


Mr James may not be aware that there is a jackpot of $150,000 available to anyone who has solid proof that man-made CO2 is warming us to dangerous levels.


When will Mr James be collecting his prize?


Yours faithfully,


Alwyn Davies









How climate change could affect Tyneside     Apr 30 2008 by Amy Hunt, Evening Chronicle          It is like a vision from a Hollywood film. But as Environment Reporter Amy Hunt finds out, the vision of the dramatic effects of climate change is very real.          FIRES and floods will hit the North East and snow will become a thing of the past as climate change tightens its grip.          But balmy temperatures enticing tourists and firms developing technology to protect our region will bring jobs and cash.          This is the double-edged scenario predicted by a study looking at how the effects of climate change will hit the region.          The North East Climate Change Adaptation Study, published today, is the most detailed and area-specific study of its kind produced anywhere in the world.          Using the latest technology, it predicts what the weather will be like between now and 2050 and what we must do now to prepare ourselves and make our region climate-proof.          The study found:          :: Annual average daily temperatures will increase by 2°C and extreme hot temperatures will increase by around 3°C;          :: Heatwaves will become more commonplace, while the number of frost days will fall;          :: Annual rainfall will fall by up to 10% but winters will be 21% wetter. Summer rainfall will fall by 37%;          :: There will be up to 20% more episodes of very heavy rainfall;          :: Winter snowfall will be much less common, with levels falling by between 45% and 83%;          :: Sea levels will increase by about 0.3m, while sea surge levels will rise by between 0.3m and 0.35m          The report says climatic changes will cause problems for the region, including:          :: More flooding from rivers, the sea and drainage systems;          :: Health problems caused by warmer summers and increased pressure on emergency services;          :: More wild fires and parkland fires;          :: An increase in infectious diseases in humans and livestock and an increase in pests;          :: Damage to buildings;          :: Erosion of the coastline.          But there will be benefits, too, including opportunities for businesses to cash in on ways of helping the region to adapt and warmer winters leading to fewer winter deaths.          Rising temperatures are predicted to make the North East a target for tourists as other destinations worldwide become uncomfortably hot.          And economic experts say the region is set to lead the way in developing renewable energy, bio-fuels, low-carbon power generation and waste and energy management.          Experts agree that human activity is causing global warming and that past and present emissions of gases such as CO2, which cause the climate to heat up, have shown what the effects will be over the next 30 to 40 years.          The authors of the study want it to inspire companies, councils and organisations in the North East and beyond to take action to protect communities, the economy, infrastructures like buildings, roads and sewers and natural resources in the face of the threat of global warming.          Wyn Jones, chairman of Sustaine, the regional champion body for sustainable development, said: “Climate change affects us all and we need to act now. This study provides the North East with a clear picture of the changes that the region is likely to face in the years ahead, the areas that will be most affected and what we need to do now to prepare and adapt for the future.          “It highlights the challenges we face and the economic opportunities that are presented by our changing climate.          “By acting now, the region, and the rest of the country can avoid or at least reduce aspects of climate change that have a detrimental effect on our society and in turn take advantage of the economic opportunities that accompany it.”          The North East Climate Change Adaptation Study is available online at www.adaptNE.


Dominic Lawson: The staggering cost of renewable



Thursday, April 24, 2008

The scariest photo

Courtesy of the Doug Ross blog, we come to Phil Chapman’s piece in The Australian where he publishes the “scariest photo I have seen on the internet”.


Dominic Lawson: The staggering cost of renewable



Thursday, April 24, 2008

The scariest photo

Courtesy of the Doug Ross blog, we come to Phil Chapman’s piece in The Australian where he publishes the “scariest photo I have seen on the internet”.

This is from, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture, writes Chapman, is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

This is from, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture, writes Chapman, is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Phil Chapman, in case you didn’t know, is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Warming (if you will forgive that word) to his theme, he tells us that, “disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.”

This we have recorded on this blog (for instance, here and here and Chapman tells us that all four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that the global temperature cooled by about 0.7C in 2007.

This, he reminds us, “is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.” He adds:

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

We could also add that Arctic ice cover this winter is over a million square kilometres more than it was last year, with Greenland ice between Canada and southwest Greenland having reached its greatest extent in 15 years. Yet still we get ill-informed propaganda puffs from the WWF in the likes of today’s Daily Telegraph telling us that dwindling Arctic sea ice may have reached a “tipping point” – relying on data from September 2005.

Rightly, Chapman cautions that it is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year. He would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. But this is where SOHO comes in. We are thus informed:

The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No 24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
It didn’t happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon’s Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No 24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.






Echoing precisely the point we made in our previous piece, Chapman says there is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do.

There are many more people now, he writes, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

In fact, Chapman posits a remote but much more serious scenario of “severe glaciation” which can occur quickly – as fast as 20 years. “The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years,” he reassures us. “On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.”

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Thus, he concludes, “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” Inevitably, Chapman warns, “It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.”

With a fine sense of history, he then chooses his closing words from Oliver Cromwell, with a message for warmists: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

The admission of error, however, is not within the gift of the warmists. If Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on them, then we have a way to go before the full horror of their obsession becomes apparent – but not very long.



500 scientists, engineers, policy makers and business leaders say GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A GLOBAL CRISIS.
500 signatories to the Manhattan Declaration including leading climate scientists have declared that man made global warming is a myth. They say that “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions from industrial activity have in the past, are now or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change”. Indeed in the historical record the rise in CO2 has always followed periods of warming (as the effects of disturbances on the Sun and the Earth created more CO2) not preceded them as the man made global warming  (MMGW) theorists maintain!
The Manhattan Declaration calls for an end to the enormous taxation burdens put on individulas and industry by “climate change” levies etc. Those levies in the UK have raised energy costs by at least 6% which together with other Government disasters like fuel taxation and the failure of the EU gas market) has contributed to a crisis of energy poverty among millions of British households (when 10% or more of income is spent on fuel bills). A consultant’s report comissioned by the UK government, estimates the cost of attempting to meet the EU target for 20% of energy consumption to be met by renewables by 2020. “The Central Case estimates the cost …….to be EUR18.8bn, with the lifetime cost of the policy being EUR259bn.” This is a scandalous waste of human resources – and all based on the myths of MMGW.
The International Climate Science Coalition which produced the Declaration says it is devoted to “fostering rational evidence based open discussion on climate issues” which will certainly make a change! The myths pedalled by politicians and those whom they shower with our money, have had virtually free rein in the media. The facts are somewhat different.
The world has not warmed at all over the last 10 years and over the last 8 years has actually cooled a little. (Even the Head of the scaremongering IPCC has admitted this). The past winter was the coldest for nearly 30 years and the Arctic has in fact just shown signs of increasing in area. (And polar bears have rarely been more numerous!) At the other pole the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica was in January 2008 almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year (summer in the Antarctic). It’s farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records. As data in the University of Illinois’ web publication Cryosphere Today shows,  there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been notorious for exaggerating its global warming claims and have even included among its “experts” (without their permission) those who have in fact rejected its theory. MMGW theory has taken on the characteristics of a fanatical religion where sceptics are called heretics or “deniers” (equating them with “Holocaust deniers”!). Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising doubts about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. “I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.” Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.”

Nigel Calder, the British former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Professor Paul Reiter of the Paris Institut Pasteur wrote to a British newspaper: “I am reminded of Trophim Lysenko, who used pseudo-science and myth-making to establish “scientific proof” of Marxist genetics. Lysenko dominated Soviet science for more than two decades by propaganda and ruthless liquidation of his opponents. When he was finally discredited, the Soviet Nobel Laureate Nocolai Semyonov wrote:- “There is nothing more dangerous than blind passion in science. Given support from someone in power, it can lead to suppression of true science, and….to inflict great injury on the country”.



So much of the research into man made global warming (MMGW) has been funded with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money (ie spent by those least capable – Governments!) Little or no Government funding has been made available to those who have questioned MMGW and most of those claiming to speak for the world’s scientists tend to be the very few scientists and managers who run academic associations rather than those engaged in real climate science. There has been massive politicisation of science by MMGW fanatics in governments. Those bent on acquiring greater power for supranational organisations have sought to create public concern – regardless of the truth. Some have let their political and ideological intentions out of the bag!
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister and “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” said Sir John Houghton, the first chairman of the UN’s IPCC. One thing is certain the MMGW theorists and their political sidekicks have lost all credibility now. If they had been more rational and circumspect they might have been believed in future but we all know what happened to the boy who kept crying “wolf”. The moral and intellectual cost to the scientific community has been tragic to behold.

On 23rd April 2006 45 mostly climate scientists (**) wrote to The Sunday Telegraph contradicting the assertions of the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow (himself NOT a climatologist but a cosmologist and astrophysicist). They explicitly contradicted Rees’s statement that the evidence for human-caused global warming “is now compelling”. On the contrary the 45 scientists say, “global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise'”. They also noted that “observational evidence does not support today‘s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future”. The names of those scientists is set out at the end of this article.
There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional control over free nations. The quality of politicians in the rich western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. Climate change seemed to them a gift from heaven – literally! We must not allow the modern rquivalent of medieval religious hegemony to run our democracies as they previously terrified the ignorant and uneducated into submission. The new enslavement may be reliant on the new Gods of politically perverted science but the effect of it’s myth making and global costs are no less terrifying than the Inquisition.
Rodney Atkinson
24th April 2008
Some signatories of scientists questioning MMGW  
(Filed: 23/04/2006)

(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, Isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

(Dr) Bob Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

(Dr) R Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

(Dr) Ian D Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada

(Dr) R M Carter, Adjunct Professor of Geology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

(Dr) R. Timothy Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

(Dr) Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

(Dr) Tim Ball, former Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

(Dr) L Graham Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

(Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario

(Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia‘s National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

(Dr) David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario

Mr Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

(Dr) Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario

(Dr) Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

(Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists

(Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

(Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.

(Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

(Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota

(Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

(Dr) Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working Group II, chapter 8 (human health)

(Dr) Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

(Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment

(Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change

(Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

(Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

(Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

(Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001,‘ Wellington, N.Z.

(Dr) Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

(Dr) Jack Barrett, retired chemist and spectrocopist, Imperial College London, U.K.

(Dr) William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

(Dr) S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

(Dr) Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Mr Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

(Dr) Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor in Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

(Dr) Wibjörn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

(Dr) Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant

(Dr) Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon

(Dr) Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, UK; international economist

(Dr) Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, UK

Hundreds Sign Climate Realist Declaration – “Global Warming’ is not a Global Crisis”


Stop the CO2 scare, before it’s too late


 Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide


Is Wikipedia in the hands of zealots

Wikipedia’s Zealots –

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I—no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out.

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.

While I’ve been writing this column, the Naomi Oreskes page has changed 10 times. Since I first tried to correct the distortions on the page, it has changed 28 times. If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia—or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen—beware. Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

See another example here of a Wikipedia embellished story on the west Antarctic icesheet. It has forecasts sea level impacts far greater than Gore and Hansen and way out of line with the IPCC.

Exposing the Climate Change Agenda


Geologist: Sun’s shift could mean global chill


The slick trick behind global frauding


On Global Warming and Horrible People


British policy advisor says Gore is in ‘panic’ mode










Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 03/08

Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 02/08

Articles 01/08

Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »

Articles 12/07

Articles 11/07

Articles 10/07

Articles 09/07

Articles 08/07

Articles 07/07

Early Articles

Posted in 1. Leave a Comment »