B4Blog

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos, Humour (18+), Politics

Carbon Tax
the next battle in the long War on Carbon.

29 June 2010
If images are lost or format mangled in transmission, you can link to a print friendly PDF of this newsletter here:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/carbon-tax.pdf

Nearly twelve months ago “Carbon Sense” predicted that the Ration-N-Tax Scheme was dead in the water, but there was real danger that it would be replaced by a carbon tax.

See: http://carbon-sense.com/2009/07/19/carbon-tax-saddled/

This looks more likely today. Those who seek total control over our lives and our assets will not rest, and a carbon tax will be supported by:

• Governments who need help to fund their wasteful spending.
• Promoters of wind and solar power – a huge permanent carbon tax is the only thing that will make these energy follies look economic.
• Those promoting nuclear power, which is coal’s major competitor for the generation of reliable economic base-load electricity.
• The Climate Change Research industry, which needs an assured stream of income to support never-ending “research”.
• Those who support national and international redistribution of wealth. Favoured classes and nations will have access to a carbon slush fund to be used for “compensation” for the effects of climate change, for increases in the cost of living or for whatever else sounds plausible and deserving at the time.
• The anti-development, anti-technology, anti-enterprise, anti-growth, back-to-sandals brigade who see carbon fuels, cheap energy and abundant power as the wicked foundations for all modern industry.
• Gas producers will secretly barrack for a carbon tax. Even though gas is a carbon fuel, and produces carbon dioxide when burnt, gas usage will get a boost every time a wind farm or solar array is built. Every wind/solar plant needs a reliable but flexible power plant on standby. As soon as the wind drops, or a cloud obscures the sun, the standby plant must be ready to fire up immediately. Gas will generally be the chosen backup. A carbon tax will also encourage the replacement of coal generators with gas generators, as gas combustion produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced. So, ironically, one carbon fuel (gas) will benefit from a carbon tax, even though its price will increase to cover the tax.
• Many Greens rightly object to the speculators, traders, regulators, auditors, lawyers and bankers lined up to benefit from emissions trading. They prefer the clean punishment of a simple heavy direct tax on their hated coal and oil fuels.
• Nations (mainly in Europe) who depend on non-carbon fuels such as nuclear, hydro or geothermal will be very pleased to see taxes on coal-dependent countries such as USA, China, India and Australia.
• Many economists will rightly claim that a carbon tax is more direct and efficient than the complex exemption-riddled Cap-n-Tax Schemes.

However the alarmist industry knows that people hate taxes. For them, the disadvantage of a carbon tax is that it will always be vulnerable to clean quick abolition (and the sooner the better).

An election is looming and carbon taxes and/or new resource taxes will loom large on the agenda. None of them will have any beneficial effect on global temperatures. We must increase the heat on all politicians – let them know that you will actively oppose anyone who supports or defends Emissions Trading or Carbon Taxes.

The statement below has had limited distribution. Please help by sending this newsletter further.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release

28th June 2010

“Carbon Tax” – signpost to the new dark age.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that a carbon tax was the next likely battle in the long war on carbon.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said it was ominous that one of the first promises made by Australia’s new Prime Minister was:

“If elected as Prime Minister I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad.”

Forbes added:

“Big governments love carbon taxes. They promise a bountiful political dividend of tax receipts and green votes.

“The tax harvest will feed the climate change industry, provide eternal corporate welfare for alternate energy speculators, and allow politicians to buy votes with handouts for favoured mendicants.

“But a carbon tax will have zero beneficial effect on earth’s temperature.

“Carbon taxes will be welcomed by the solar/wind lobby. But the world now has plenty of real experiments proving the inability of these follies to generate reliable power at reasonable cost - Spain, Portugal, Germany, Denmark and California.

“But the slow learner governments of the world, UK, New Zealand and Australia, seem determined to punish their economies, their tax payers and their electricity consumers by repeating the same anti-carbon errors.

“There are other feasible methods for generating reliable economic non-carbon electricity – nuclear power as in France, geo-thermal as in Iceland, and hydro as in Scandinavia. However none of these options will be available for Australia for at least a decade.

“Carbon taxes will just depress the tourism, transport, steel, resource and cement industries and penalise every user of electricity in their homes, farms, factories and refineries.

“Carbon Tax” should be Gillard-tined for the same reasons that the Wong Ration-N-Tax Scheme was chopped – it will have no climate benefits but it will destroy businesses, jobs and living standards.

“Everyone knows that if you tax something, less of it will be produced.

“Carbon produces the heat, light, food and transport for the modern world. A carbon tax will inevitably reduce the production of these essentials – it is a signpost on the road to a new dark age.

Viv Forbes

Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

Rosevale, Qld, Australia

www.carbon-sense.com

Categories: AGW Realists, Politics

Anthropogenic Global Warming, CO2, Climate Change Catastrophe, Sea-Levels Rising, etc., ought to just be put to bed and forgotten.

Why would any ‘one hundred per cent’ solid science, require promotion, encouragement, support, lobby groups, advertising, marketing, promotion and endless shouting, crying and hollering if it was 'solid’?

Surely solid science would present a conclusion of 'this is it and here are the facts’. And that would have been the only prerequisite, apart from a weekly TV show with some ‘nutty professor’ demonstrating the irrefutable evidence.

But Global Warming science produced its own rod for its own back, by qualifying the un-proven evidence with ... it's 'settled'.

Being 'settled' did nothing more than generate the question 'What is and how is it 'settled'?

That straightforward, unpretentious question created angst and generated white coat racism from those endorsing the 'settled' dogma of man-made global warming.

Simply asking "What is and how is it 'settled'?" established a line in the sand and threw the War Mist’s into disarray. Their retorts ranged from "even asking that question proves the deniers know nothing" thru to "skeptics sell garbage in an effort to destroy the truth". Those rebuttals did not stop people asking the same question "What is and how is it 'settled'?", so the mental genius of the War Ming scientist's stepped up to another level.

They then qualified the proven 'settled' results by offering the 'questioners' further valuable information like, "those questioning the science are like people selling drugs and are criminals that should all got to jail" thru to "those that question Global Warming will be responsible for the deaths of their children's children and their children."

Our very own “Clown Prince” – Clown Prince Ruddy of Orstraylya dictated Global Warming to be the “greatest moral challenge of our generation”, yet he only recently put this ‘vote winning’ moral challenge on the coal fired back burner.

These were all powerful, scientific, factual responses that lead to the Global Warming Science declaration of war, aiming to fight the mentally unstable, felonious, invading ‘deniers’.

But wait a minute … they, the Global War Mist’s started it! With propaganda, scaring the meek, frightening children, looting public funds, creating wealth out of nothing, etc.

However as the Global Warming Wheel of Fortune kept rolling along, the spokes began to break.

Everyone knows what those broken spokes were, so there is no need to repeat the catastrophic cooling of the warming facts once more.

But these failed spokes have produced an often un-noticed about turn in much of the 'settled' science.

Many of the ‘War Ming” scientists have now crawled back under the ‘lack of credibility rock’, leaving the 'campaign' to the remaining scientists who seem to have been touched by the hand of the God of Global Warming. Their current eagerness must be due to the God of Global Warming, or could it be the pending research grants? Well, it’s one or the other.

Now I'm not talking about the God of Global Warming, Al Gore ... I'm talking about a 'real' God ... one that has never been seen or can't be proven, but must be there because so many people believe the 'word' of this God. He/She simply must exist as all good God’s do.

He/She has evidently enlightened the remaining believers, as they are now qualifying the science with more 'facts', in an effort to once more ‘prove the science’ that has already been settled.

But rather than being 'one hundred percent settled', most facts are now 'proven' with a 90% probability. That figure of 90% is pretty close to 100% for most believers; so the results once again, are 'frighteningly accurate'. If it’s 90% proven, it must be 'game back on'.

I fall into the 'evil-doer' category of people who have the courage to ask questions, so I was tempted to ask 'What is and how is it 90%?"

But after some self consultation, and remembering what I had learnt while studying at the University of Life, I chose not to. We all know what happened the last time someone asked that question.

So as an alternative, I turned to my God. My God is better than their God because my God can speak. And He/She asked me this question.

"My Son, 90% sounds high, it sounds high enough to be credible and acceptable, but My Son, would you fly in aero planes if they would crash once in every ten flights?"

You see, there is a God. The God of common sense, logical and lateral thinking.

And He/She will be known, by the powers invested in me, from this day forward, as Gocslalt.

Also see:

John Clarke and Bryan Dawe on what Kevin Rudd has called the greatest moral challenge of our time.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/04/29/2886369.htm

Categories: AGW Realists, Politics

The alarmist news group header read:

HA! HA! Balloon records show surface level warming

These very robust global yearly mean ground data are graphed here

These possible ‘crackpot’ claims always need to be tested. After the NOAA data was obtained, it was noticed that there were SIX sets of balloon data. Why this one was chosen, without comparison, is not known. The first thing to check was the warmist’s claim.

It’s pretty close, although his/hers is visually ‘stretched’ for effect. Also notice the use of degrees K. Maybe this could be a real scientist at work. But for this purpose, simply read the temp as C.

The temperature increase trend of 0.011 per year is 0.11 per decade, or 1.1 per century.

Is this ‘dramatic warming’ alarming? No. Even if this trend was to continue, it is no more than what would be expected by natural variances … 1 degree in 100 years.

But what the alarmist DIDN’T show is interesting.

Weather balloons measure various criteria throughout the atmosphere, at pre-determined pressure levels. These range from surface to around 80,000 feet. The data was obtained from 85 locations across 46 countries. The data provided for this ‘warming’ headline contained 13 sets of records, not just the one. Why the alarmist chose only the surface record to examine is unknown.

If all data was analysed and shown, the headline should have read:

Troposphere Slightly Warming while Stratosphere Dramatically Cools.

The alarmist failed to mention this cooling, or provide any information of why there is this cooling.

Most of the earth’s weather happens in the Troposphere (the first 11 miles), so the Stratosphere cooling can’t be weather related.

The theory of CO2 in the atmosphere causing the earth to become warmer can’t be correct, as only 50% of all atmospheric gases are in the Troposphere (where the weather is), with the remaining 50% gradually depleting out to about 100 kilometers. Regardless of how much CO2 or other gas is pumped into the atmosphere, only 50% of that quantity can affect the earth’s surface by climate alteration due to weather. Therefore if CO2 was the cause of warming, the Stratosphere should also be warming, not dramatically cooling. Maybe CO2 could have an effect on certain weather events, but it certainly is not causing the atmosphere to warm, thereby making the earth hotter.

Gases in the Stratosphere can cause changes to the Ozone layer, but that is not the cause of Global Warming.

The density of gases in the Troposphere decrease with height, therefore CO2 causing an atmospheric warming should be greater at the earths surface, but that is not the case. Warming is more pronounced all the way up to 30000 feet than at the surface, with the highest amount of warming at around 23000 feet.

There must be doubt about climate getting hotter due to long term changes in weather. Weather happens in the Troposphere, more clouds, less clouds, more rain, less rain, more snow, more hotter days, more warmer nights, more droughts, more anything weather related happens here. But these changes can’t happen uniformly, because the Troposphere is not a constant, it is always in a state of flux. At the Equator it is about 11 miles high, at 50 degrees north or south it is about 5.5 miles high, and at the poles 4 miles high. If the atmosphere was causing warming, it could only be due to the Troposphere, as the Stratosphere is cooling. This could not be global because there is twice the effect at the equator than at the poles. If the poles are melting, there MUST be catastrophic heat waves around the pole. Twice the cause for twice the effect.

And I hear the howls of ‘climate and weather are two different things’. Yes they are. It will be hot and dry tomorrow is weather. It’s been hot and dry for the past 5 years is climate.

As can be seen from the preceding data, any warming or cooling is related to altitude and pressure, not CO2.

Why this is happening is a mystery. There are numerous expert opinions regarding H2O emissions into the Stratosphere, greenhouse gases leaking into it, CO2 causing longer wavelength reflections causing the cooling, ozone depletion, etc. But most interesting, is that ALL of the ‘sky is falling’ experts say that the temperature will DECREASE the higher you go into the Troposphere because of various reasons (with formulae to prove it). But the facts show the opposite. There are WARMER than surface temps going up thru the Troposphere.

Also explained was the effect Mt Pinatubo had on the Stratosphere in 1991 following the eruption. Large amounts of sulphate aerosols caused a huge warming in the Stratosphere, and since then we’ve seen a decline from that, giving a false cooling impression. But they don’t explain the massive warming in 1982 and 1964.

The following snippet from another snippet sums it up.

Since 1979 observations imply that the troposphere in the tropics has cooled whereas the surface has warmed.

This contradicts climate model projections, which predict greater warming aloft.

It is also a reversal of an earlier global-mean trend according to the longer radiosonde analyses.

It casts doubt upon our understanding of the climate system and ability to predict future climate changes.

Maybe it’s all to do with the Sun. Maybe the lower level warmth is simply the earth radiating its own heat.

Who knows? I don’t. But I’m obviously not alone.

The NOAA Data can be found here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ratpac/index.php?name=access

Pressure to Altitude reference:

http://www.sablesys.com/baro-altitude.html

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

To Homogenise or not to Homogenise? … that is NOT the question.

To Amplify with Homogenisation or not to Amplify? … that IS the question.

Before going any further, it is important to understand what “Homogenisation” is, and to realize that it has nothing to do with weather, temperature or climate. The use of ‘Homogenisation’ to explain temperature records adjustments is pure ‘living in AGW Land’ spin.

Definitions:

• Homogenization is intensive blending of mutually related substances or groups of mutually related substances to form a constant of different insoluble phases (sometimes with addition of surfactants) to obtain a suspension or emulsion.
• blending, mixing, disrupting, emulsifying, dispersing, stirring etc.
• to process (milk) so that the fat particles are so finely divided and emulsified that the cream does not separate on standing
• to make more uniform throughout in texture, mixture, quality, etc. by breaking down and blending the particles

No mention anywhere of climate data records, or any data for that matter. ‘Living in AGW Land’ Spin Doctors have used the wrong word. They should be using the word ‘Assimilate’, not Homogenise.

So, now on to climate homogenisation.

As previously noted, GISS (NASA) have multiple sets of ‘climate’ records. Long term records are the minority, so when one is found, it is worth evaluating.

Godthab Nuuk is one (two) such record(s), from 1881 thru to 2009 with only two years missing … 1899 and 2008.

The two sets of different data are explained by NASA. One is before homogenisation and one after homogenisation.

But first, a bit about Godthab Nuuk.

The city was renamed Nuuk in 1979.

Nuuk is the capital of Greenland, situated about 240 km from the Arctic Circle.

15,105 people, (18,300 with surrounding villages) over a third of Greenland’s population live in Nuuk, one of the least populated capital cities in the world.

There are 72 buses and 2570 cars in Greenland and the majority operate in Nuuk.

Nuuk’s temperature extremes range from an average high of 9.9C in July, to an average low of -10.7C in February/March. The average annual high temperature is 1.74C, with an annual average low temperature of -3.78C

The GISS records for Nuuk have been homogenised to allow for urbanisation, the heat island effect, measuring equipment being placed at the back of air-conditioners, etc., and any ‘errors’ there may have been in previous record keeping (apparently).

The temperature records have been ‘homogenised’ by adding decreasing values of between 0 to -1.2C from the most modern records to the oldest records. Why the choice of this range of values is unknown.

The two different records can be seen in the following chart.

Blue plot before homogenisation, purple plot after homogenisation.

So, where’s the problem? The problem is that older records have been reduced to adjust for any possible inaccuracies in newer records. This amplifies these possible modern inaccuracies, therefore producing a more pronounced warming trend.

Any adjustments should have been made by either increasing past records, to bring them into alignment with modern records, or remove the false values from the modern records.

Why would anyone lower the temperature records from 1881 because unbanisation has forced an increase in real temperature in 2010? Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

When the GISS homogenisation values are reversed and applied, the results show very little warming. This can be seen in the following chart.

Blue plot before homogenisation, purple plot after homogenisation, red plot is reversed homogenisation values added to the original, before homogenisation, data.

The use of homogenisation for a location such as Nuuk is questionable. With a small population, little industry, few motor vehicles, and one hydroelectric power plant, there is no reason to adjust the data, so as to compensate for ‘bad stuff’.

Does homogenisation make that much difference? Yes.

The future predictions from the preceding chart are:

• Increase of 0.09C per century – Reversed Homogenised data.
• Increase of 0.75C per century - Original data.
• Increase of 1.4C per century - Homogenised data.

Homogenising virtually doubles the future warming predicted trend.

The homogenisation values don’t seem to follow any guidelines. They don’t follow the past records. They are not linear. They are not exponential. They appear in ‘blocks’, sequentially reducing by -0.1C per block. This does not seem to be a scientific adjustment. Less scientific is the ‘pattern’ appearing from 1975 onwards … 3 years, 4 years, 4 years, … with each ‘block’ reducing exactly -0.1C. This scientific methodology is not something that would happen in nature.

The following table shows this clearly.

Nuuk Homogenisation Adjustment record

Yellow plot = homogenisation values.

So, if the modern readings are being inflated by urbanisation, or the heat island effect, or whatever, shouldn’t the homogenisation values be added the other way around? That is, force the older records to have the modern record’s stability.

Ooops, I almost forgot the rule.

AGW Rule #1. Must prove warming at an alarming rate.

One last question.

Did politicians teach “spin” to ‘living in AGW land’ scientists, or was it the other way around?

Data Link before homogenisation:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Data Link after homogenisation:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

More about Godthab Nuuk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuuk

http://www.nat.is/greenlandeng/nuukeng.htm

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos, Politics

Polar Bears - Climate Change - Global Warming - Melting Sea Ice. Really?

Copenhagen was presented with 'facts' about the Polar Bear decline ... due to Global Warming.

One place of great interest was Baffin Bay, Canada.

The PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group) promoted the following figures as PROOF Global Warming was causing this catastrophic reduction in the Polar Bear population.

Estimated population in 1997 was 2074.
Estimated population in 2004 was 1546
That's 528 Polar Bears GONE in 8 years, or 66 EVERY year.
The current trend shows they are 'Declining', and an estimated risk of future decline as 'Very High'.
PROOF we must stop Global Warming to save the Polar Bears. More ...

But, that's not the true story, typical of alarmists.

Hunters in Nunavut's Baffin Bay region will be allowed to KILL 105 Polar Bears this season (2008), as per their unchanged quota. More ...

So lets do a bit of Global Warming science here. Then again, let's not. Let's use logic.

The alarmists tell us that there are 66 less Polar Bears every year due to Global Warming (possibly hunting), but the hunters are knocking off 105 every year due to .... hunting.

Simple logic tells us that during the period, 'apparent' Global Warming killed off 528 bears, hunters killed off 840.

The difference is 312.

If the Polar Bear has a very high risk of future decline, how come there were 312 MORE dead Polar Bears NOT killed by Global Warming accounted for during the period? That's a 15% population INCREASE over that time.

Did the alarmists INCLUDED the hunting figures within the decline estimates? That is not made clear, but if they didn't, Polar Bears are REALLY THRIVING.

During the period there were 840 hunted (we know that is correct because it is regulated) PLUS the 528 that suffered 'Death by Global Warming'.

All up that's 1368 dead Polar Bears accounted for during that period.

That's a Polar Bear population INCREASE since 1997 of 65%.

Whichever way you look at it, Polar Bears are NOT becomming extinct due to Global Warming, and in fact, if there IS any warming, the Polar Bears are LOVING it!

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

2004 - 4 Polar Bears found dead floating in the sea.

2007 - 2 Polar Bears found dead floating in the sea.

Proof that Global Warming is making the Polar Bear extinct because the sea ice is melting!

Wrong!!

The 2 bears from 2007 drowned when researchers shot them with tranquillizers.

Steve Pinksen, director of policy with Nunavut's Environment Department, told CBC News that researchers have occasionally killed bears in self-defence, but it's very rare for a bear to die after being tranquillized.
"I'd hope that in the long run people see the value, that we really need the information from the research and there will be some cost to that … including the odd dead bear."

More ...

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

Obama is being heavily criticised for his lack of apparent concern over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

But, what if the spill and following disaster could be used as 'proof' we need to turn away from fossil fuels and support Obama's ETS so as to save any similar future disasters.

Wouldn't that put a different spin on things?

Categories: AGW Realists

Where did the leading experts of our time go?

One moment they’re preaching their expertise, and then suddenly, they’re gone.

They must not be allowed to disappear without scrutiny, although I doubt they will appear to defend their claims.

Remember Tuvalu?

Tuvalu was a little known place until Big Al predicted the gloom of this ‘Pacific Nation’.

From then on, bandwagon jump onners came out from everywhere.

There were Social savers, wildlife groups, cat rescuers, misled governments, even a crying man from Canberra who claimed Tuvalu was HIS island nation.

We must not let these Great Big Fairytale farcical claims slip from memory.

Al Gore said;

“That’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand.”

Yet a British judge later ruled, there was no evidence of climate refugees from the Pacific having to be evacuated to New Zealand or anywhere else to escape rising seas.

But they kept on going with the Great Big Fairytale.

Oxfam said;

“More than 75 million people living on Pacific islands will have to relocate by 2050 because of the effects of climate change.”

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister said;

“The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.”

Rob Gell (ex TV weather man, geologist, environment expert, spokesperson for Greening Australia) and his side-kick, Tuvaluan Tito Tapungao at an exhibition launched at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum said;

“It is virtually a foregone conclusion that Tuvalu will be uninhabitable within the next 50 years”.

Professor Mohammed Dore, who has established himself as an outstanding scholar of international stature in environmental economics for his expertise in the social issues of environmental impacts, particularly in the area of global climate change and its effect on forestry, water supply and water treatment said

"In fact, there is an island called Tuvalu, which was completely evacuated and New Zealand accepted all the residents because of sea level rising. Although, the greatest change in climate is going to be at the poles, so northern Canada and the Antarctic."
"People think that a small society of Inuits will be affected, but it's going to have global consequences because the ice sheets that are melting very fast will end up into the seas and the sea level is going to continue to rise - it has already risen significantly. It's going to affect the entire globe."

Ian Fry, from Canberra, while at Copenhagen talking about Tuvalu sinking said as his eyes welled with tears

"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit,"
"The fate of my country rests in your hands."

Professor Nick Harvey, from the University of Adelaide and one of five Australian lead authors on the Australian chapter of the IPCC report, while discussing low-lying atolls said;

“a sea level rise of about half a metre by 2100 is no longer in dispute. And with the tipping point now behind us, he is surprised there has been so little interest in the plight of our island neighbours.”

That funny old chap, Professor Tim Flannery said;

"Sometime in the next 30 years, we face significant destabilisation," he says.
"Rapidly rising sea levels, maybe up to six metres. And hundreds of millions of refugees, because there are whole cities going under."
"We've seen what happened after September 11," Flannery continues. "People bunker down and see enemies everywhere.”

What the …. It’s about now we should really stop listening to Tim’s ‘whacky’ predictions.

The Australian Labor government fell for this rubbish, taking the bait hook, line & sinker by setting up the ‘Pacific Climate Change Plan’ to take in these ‘Climate Change Refugees”.

Low-lying Pacific island states such as Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu - which sit just a few metres above sea level - are at risk of being swamped as global warming forces sea levels to rise.
"We should be part of an international coalition which is prepared to do our fair share," Opposition environment spokesman Anthony Albanese said.
"The alternative to that is to say, and I don't think any Australian would accept this, that we're going to sit by while people literally drown."

But wait!!

A new bunch of ‘Honest Climate Scientists’ have found that many low-lying Pacific Islands are growing, not sinking.

"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger."
"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.
"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years."

The ‘Honest Climate Scientist’s” findings are here.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology can’t find any ‘sinking’ at Tuvolu in their monthly sea levels for Tuvalu.

In fact, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the Tuvalu Sea Levels over the past 120 months (10 years) are falling. This decline should have been recognized by anyone promoting the Great Big Fairytale.

The Tuvalu Government’s Tourism Department doesn’t seem concerned, as they describe Tuvalu as ‘this unspoiled corner of the Pacific’ with a population of 9,561 people.

Did any of the ‘Great Big Fairytale’ experts think of picking up a phone and ringing Tuvalu to check on their welfare?

They could have tried;

(688) 20501 – Yaiaku Lagi Hotel (no credit cards – cash only – Australian Dollars)

(688) 20545 – Fale Tolu Motel - (no credit cards – cash only – Australian Dollars)

And what have the ‘previous Great Big Fairytale climate experts’ had to say about these new findings?

SFA

And how many press headlines have announced this wonderful news?

SFA

And how many TV news breaks have led with this honest news?

SFA

Adelaide University climate scientist Professor Barry Brook says he is surprised by the findings.

I’m not, and I’m not even a Professor.

Polar Bears thriving, Himalayas not melting, Great Barrier Reef is pristine, Pacific Islands are afloat.

Do the tellers of the Great Big Fairytale have anything left?

Footnote:

This is just too stupid for words, but only in America.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Addressing Adm. Robert Willard, who commands the Navy's Pacific Fleet, Johnson made a tippy motion with his hands and said sternly, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

Willard paused and said: "We don't anticipate that."

Like other islands, Guam is attached to the sea floor, which makes it extremely unlikely that it will tip over, even if there are lots and lots of people on it.

More …..

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

A woman from Los Angeles, who was a tree hugger and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland, near Grants Pass, Oregon. There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of the natural splendor of her land so she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her. In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree to the ground and got many splinters in her crotch.

In considerable pain, she hurried to the nearest doctor. She told him she was an environmentalist and an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters. The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go into the examining room and he would see if he could help her. She sat and waited three hours before the doctor reappeared.

The angry woman demanded, "What took you so long?"

He smiled and then told her, "Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a recreational area. I'm sorry, but they turned me down."

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos, Humour (18+)

They keep saying ' hottest january on record'

Here's the background to that statement, made by Phil Jones (the same Phil Jones from Glimategate) to the BBC.

" that the satellite record from the University of Alabama in Huntsville showed it had been the warmest January since records began in 1979."

In other words, we've just had the hottest January in Jennifer Love Hewitt's lifetime.

The planet is doomed and we will all be killed.

Categories: AGW Realists

Green Idealism = Peter Garrett = Wave Generator Project = $5 million Dollars = Disaster. (Green = Peter Garrett = Disaster ... should we be surprised?)

I bet most people don't know that there has been a wasted $5 million spent on the idea of 'producing Green energy from the ocean waves'.

It was called 'The Wave Generator Project', when in fact, it was a wave energy system. Contrary to the project's title, it didn't produce waves, it absorbed them to produce energy.

Anyway, it's now smashed and broken.

Why?

Big waves.

Can someone, anyone, please ask them to stop wasting money on this silly green shit?

Or is this just another example of science attempting to control nature and getting it wrong ... again?

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/5m-port-kembla-wave-generator-wrecked/1830582.aspx

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/port-kembla-wave-generator-on-sea-floor/1831275.aspx

Comments to both links are interesting.

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

It's not very often I feel sorry for our Indigenous folk. But here's an example of how a weak government and greenies (the wilderness society) can even destroy something good that the Abos have done.

In Queensland there is a campaign called the Queensland Wild Rivers legislation. This is to "protect" wild rivers from being changed from their natural state. And in true GREENIE WACKO hysteria fashion they make comparisons like these rivers remain open to many of the same threats that have torn the heart out of other Australian rivers - such as the Murray. Rubbish, non of these rivers support the population or the farming practises sustained by the Murray and they never will. Nor are they anything like the Murray in structure, terrain or climate. That statement is simply another example of greenie wacko hysteria implanted to falsely educate the ignorant.

Many of the suggested rivers are in no danger of anything apart from GREENIE takeover, and are/were accessed by Indigenous tour guides to show us Non-Indigenous folk how wonderful these areas are. And they (the Abos) won't destroy anything because it is employment for now and the future. These tour operations are very successful by producing employment and education in a self funded way. No one can complain about that.

There were three rivers under consideration; the Stewart, the Archer and the Lockhart. This area also includes the Aurukun wetlands, an area almost 5 times bigger than Kakadu, as well as associated water basins, creeks and feeder streams.

The Indigenous folk don't want this government protection, they say there is no need. Everything is going just fine under the current Cape York global conservation values.

So, now that the state election is out of the way, in comes the government protection that has been "kept quiet" prior to the election. The above mentioned rivers are now "wild" according the Queensland Government and The Wilderness Society.

The legislation mentions with protection will come sustainable livelihoods for Indigenous people - who wish to live and work on their ancestral homelands.

What they don't state in the GREEN publicity is the fine print within the legislation. No business, including mineral, farming and agriculture is to be operated any closer than 1 kilometre from the edge of the protected areas.

This means that all of the Indigenous tour, fishing and hunting operations in these areas must stop. Also, a lot of the big "stations" in this area are now under Indigenous control, so they need to relocate their boundaries back 1 kilometre. Not to mention how do they now water stock.

It's not just the Abos this will effect. There are many successful non-indigenous tour/fishing/hunting operations and stations up in these areas that must now abide by the GREENIE takeover.

And I bet the only GREENIES you'll find in these areas are either hugging a tree, at the dole office or applying for a grant to write a thesis on something GREEN.

For anyone who has ever gone into these areas Barra fishing, pig hunting, looking for crocs or to experience this wilderness simply out of interest, congratulations. For those who haven't, you and other generations have missed out.

The next thing will be a task force set-up to look into the decline in tourism.

Just ridiculous.

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

A 'bleeding hearts club' of AGW Scientists have written to Science Magazine, bleating out a petition about how we must take action to save ourselves from the forthcoming Global Warming catastrophe.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

The 'warning' is lead by Peter Glieck (a renowned 'political climate' scientist), asking that we all immediately stop the McCarthy style threats and harassment of his colleagues and immediately cease the false accusations of 'credibility' about Climate Scientists, and the science itself.

And to make his point valid, the following picture is included.

THIS IS A PHOTOSHOP FAKE!!!!

Just like the cover of Al Gore's new book ... Our Choice, A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis

IT'S A PHOTOSHOP FAKE.
THAT IS A CYCLONE OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA, NOT A HURRICANE. IT'S SPINNING THE WRONG WAY.

"Hurricanes at a 30 year low ... photoshop in a Cyclone."

Cyclones = southern hemisphere = clockwise

Hurricanes = northern hemisphere = anti-clockwise

Everybody knows that.

Just about says it all really.

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos, Politics

I just got a big juicy contract to supply flexible electrical contacts for windmills!

These are the same I invented and patented for bumper cars in amusement parks and the margin is outrageous.

So, we must all do our part to promote wind power and abolish all others.

So, now that I'm a convert to the cause I see the attraction...MONEY!!!!

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

From BBC News: "Climate change will trigger a dramatic and sudden decline in the number of polar bears, a new study has concluded."

Oh good Lord do these mopes never quit?

We had 5,000 polar bears in the 1960s. Today we have 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears. Only 8 of the 19 polar bear populations are in decline - 11 are rising in number. This is from the liberal Wikipedia.

The last time I checked, 11 was greater than 8.

So how do pseudo-scientists get around this glaring hole in their narrative?

Simple. Ignore the numbers.

From BBC News: "Until now, most studies measuring polar bear survival have relied on a method called mark and recapture. This involves repeatedly catching polar bears in a population over several years, which is cost and time-intensive."

Wait, we are going to force the world to spend trillions in taxes and changes in the economy based on shoddy evidence because actually counting bears is too expensive?

And of course, we get the high-pressure sales pitch from Peter Molnar of the University of Alberta in Canada: "We may not see any substantial effect on polar bear reproduction and survival until some threshold is passed."

Yes if we act on facts instead of emotion why it will be too late.

That's what they said at Kyoto 15 years ago.

We did nothing.

Global temperatures fell.

It is a charade.

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

Categories: AGW Realists

For all of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, that bogus god you worship named "Climate Change" or "Global Warming", there is some really bad news that will be very painful for you to process.

But it is my duty to pass it on to you anyway.

Are you sitting down?

more ... 

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that "global warming" is or could become a global crisis.

more ... 

Categories: AGW Realists

Persistent cold, wet weather delays crop harvests, worries farmers

Of course, the cooler temperatures have an upside, delaying Sierra snowmelt.

On Friday the state Department of Water Resources boosted the delivery forecast for its customers to 45 percent of contract amounts, reflecting a snowpack that's at 167 percent of normal.

more ... 

Categories: AGW Realists

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

more ... 

Categories: AGW Realists, AGW Whackos

Where's the Ice for my drink?

more ... 

Categories: AGW Realists

Categories: AGW Realists