The Ranga Is ...not on my xmas card list

[tab]

Not sure exactly what Impellor is trying to say, but sort of raises a valid point.

I listen to a Podcast done by Will Anderson and his mate, and on a recent edition was talking about how voters should be given a simple questionnaire they have to pass before their vote is considered valid.

Example questions were the likes of ‘name the two houses of federal parliament’ & ‘what house does the prime minister sit in’. His mate had absolutely no friggin idea and thought it was hilarious, which sort of got me thinking so I have asked a few people since and the current strike rate is out of 18 people 11 have absolutely no idea. That sh*t scares me...people with absolutely no knowledge about what they are doing are deciding the fate of the country.

Same as the old green ‘protest vote’. There is no such thing as a protest vote in the senate, every single vote makes a difference. It’s one thing to have a bit of a protest vote with the House of Reps knowing that the loony that gets your first preference won’t actually get anywhere...but with the Senate they often do and a handful of the fckers have just been sworn in!

Edited 14/07/11 10:53 AM by tab

[Dagabond]

I'd like Lumpy's opinion on all this....

[Smoke them tyres]

So if I'm nominated as a "big bad polluter"....

-no compensation to me for the cost of my inputs going up = less free cash flow (FCF) in the business

-buy these shonky overseas credits = more reduction of FCF

-higher likelihood of increased interest rates due to the new payments for the credits (and the continuing incompetence of this mob) worsening the balance of payments = even less free capital in the business

-the Ranga then tells me that I can't put prices up and probably wouldn't do so anyway as the ability of customers to purchase at the lowest/moderate price is easily accessible in a lot of cases, so I'm constrained there = unable to increase FCF

-I am then expected to so called "clean up" the so called "dirty" business whilst still paying for the shonky credits. Because of the further reduced FCF in the business, this must mean that the debt to equity ratio is likely to be higher, and that returns to non-secured shareholders will be more risky and uncertain. Superannuation anyone?

-what if it is cheaper to pay the credits than clean up a major piece of infrastructure????????

and this is before the other taxes that they have dreamt up. And introducing all this when the markets and consumers are already nervous...another masterstroke!

Anyone who thinks that the compensation is going to get it done had better think again. In near terms, this is the typical Labor Party 3 shell trick......trumpet and sucker in what people are to receive and quietly rip twice as much away. This compensation has nothing to do with being fair. The fact that they are throwing the kitchen sink at it, IMO has changed it from an economic/environmental imperative into a political one;

-to save their political skins

-and getting the thing in so that they can get to the real payoff later

How do these numbnuts expect to save the environment with a lower standard of living......socialism has damaged the environment far more than capitalism ever has. It never ceases to amaze me that each time the socialists come to power, that they implement the very same crap that they have tried for the last 100 years and are surprised when it implodes. Then do no self examination of why it did so in opposition. Truly STUPID.

The trembling lip and quivering voice from Gillard has only convinced me more that there is NO "real Joooylia". It is like someone thrashing around trying to find the "right" formula. I have never seen, met or known anyone in my entire life that is so devoid of any true and worthwhile traits. As for the rest of that mob...not a brain amongst 'em.

I am still in utter disbelief that this mob can do ANYTHING right.

Edited 14/07/11 11:33 AM by Smoke them tyres

[Tobey]

It's funny to see the attitudes from the different generations...

So guys, what SHOULD we do to reduce pollution? Wait until Somalia decide to act, then get our sh*t together?

I assume most of you guys wont actually get to see the planet in 2050, when half of it is under water (exaggeration)...

Australia has 16m cars on the road at the moment - Fact. The plan by 2020 is to have the equivalent emissions of 46million cars removed from the atmosphere. By 2050, Australia's emissions will have been reduced by 80%.

IMO that's pretty good. But I guess all of you who are worried about a 0.7% increase on CPI dont think its worth it...

[Smoke them tyres]

Well let's make sure we are talking about the right pollution in the first place!

This current proposal is such a stupid, ineffective and inefficient way to do it. ie...it doesn't pass the logic/common sense test, or the effectiveness test or the efficiency test. It will therefore fail and cause much un-needed aggro for everyone. Greens = :nuts2: :nuts2: :nuts2: :nuts2: :nuts2:

If the govt were to help in providing the right conditions to the market, it would be FAR more effective...

-having a clear plan on what industries to drive change in, so that an improved technological outcome is delivered

-tax free/reduced tax period to help industries establish rather than penalising certain ones and expecting the rest to make their way

-125% R&D concession like Hawke did (assuming no rorting)

-free trade zones/special economic zones

-encouraging a venture capital industry in this country

-simplifying the patent system

-encouraging R&D businesses to establish in Australia

I also fail to see that the Greens don't have a conundrum with their current policy. They want "pollution" reduced, but have no problem in a big population.......which is the biggest contributor to pollution in the first place.

Edited 14/07/11 12:15 PM by Smoke them tyres

[hypnodoc]

It's funny to see the attitudes from the different generations...

So guys, what SHOULD we do to reduce pollution? Wait until Somalia decide to act, then get our sh*t together?

I assume most of you guys wont actually get to see the planet in 2050, when half of it is under water (exaggeration)...

Australia has 16m cars on the road at the moment - Fact. The plan by 2020 is to have the equivalent emissions of 46million cars removed from the atmosphere. By 2050, Australia's emissions will have been reduced by 80%.

IMO that's pretty good. But I guess all of you who are worried about a 0.7% increase on CPI dont think its worth it...

Toby it seems that you have been watching too much of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Half Truth" and listening to WWF tin rattlers, China will dump as much evil C02 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as what Aus does in 2 years and they will use our coal to do it.

All this tax we will pay is never going to change that fact one bit, plus China is smart enough to realise that man made global warming is a CROCK anyway. Plus if you want to drive a Prius or some other "non real car" go for your life. And as far as your assumption about 2050 is concerned most of us oldies have kids that we love who will be here in 2050.

[Bomber]

Bob Brown is a flog

[Tim]

Toby it seems that you have been watching too much of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Half Truth" and listening to WWF tin rattlers, China will dump as much evil C02 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as what Aus does in 2 years and they will use our coal to do it.

All this tax we will pay is never going to change that fact one bit, plus China is smart enough to realise that man made global warming is a CROCK anyway. Plus if you want to drive a Prius or some other "non real car" go for your life. And as far as your assumption about 2050 is concerned most of us oldies have kids that we love who will be here in 2050.

China spent almost 50 billion US dollars in 2010 on renewable energy and have been increasing this rapidly. This may not be totally to reduce co2 but to me this say China is smart enough to invest in green technology which will drive its economy into the low carbon future.

And yes, most of the voting public dont understand the political system. Local and state issues and constantly draged into federal elections and vice versa. I have a reasonable understanding of the political system and chose to vote for the Greens.

It sounds like there are a few people who are climate change sceptics.

[hypnodoc]

China spent almost 50 billion US dollars in 2010 on renewable energy and have been increasing this rapidly. This may not be totally to reduce co2 but to me this say China is smart enough to invest in green technology which will drive its economy into the low carbon future.

And yes, most of the voting public dont understand the political system. Local and state issues and constantly draged into federal elections and vice versa. I have a reasonable understanding of the political system and chose to vote for the Greens.

It sounds like there are a few people who are climate change sceptics.

China is also spending billions on more coal fired power stations god bless them. There are no sceptics, just those with common sense and those who have been sucked in by all this nonsense.

Now have a long and interesting read. There are 1000s of well credentialed REAL scientists who know its a crock, their names are listed half way through what is pasted below.

Some facts to consider before you believe we are all going to melt away

1. Carbon (CO2) is blamed as the great culprit of this supposed global warming is found in the ocean in the hundreds of billions of tons, and millions of tons are released daily into the atmosphere through natural evaporative processes.

2. Last time the Mt St Helens Volcano blew its top in the US, it released into the atmosphere in one day the same amount of carbon and other pollutants as what it would take humans 400 years to produce at present social and industrial levels. Since that time, there have been many more active Volcano’s continuing to contribute massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

3. If you put an ice cube into a glass and then fill it to the very top with water, when the ice melts, do you get water spilling out over the sides? No, because water expands when it becomes ice and contracts when it melts. And as for the nonsense of the world flooding and sea levels rising, what about the more likely reality of the Teutonic plates shifting and causing a rise or fall in the landmasses?

4. The hole in the Ozone layer appears every year above the north and south poles is a naturally occurring event that has nothing to do with CFCs. If the so-called Ozone holes are caused by CFCs then why don’t holes appear above the major industrial cities? The other ignored truths are that it takes 40 years for a CFC particle to get from the ground to the Ozone layer, and secondly ozone is created by a synthesis between sunlight and the ocean. So when the long winters of no daylight happen in the poles then Ozone is not being produced and the holes expand.

5. Who stands to make the most money from research grants to prove the existence of global warming? By December 2007 the only evidence that has been produced to support the Global Warming theory has come from obscure boffins engaged in the manipulation of previous statistics. These so called experts and their computer models can’t even predict next week’s weather correctly, or when an earthquake will happen, or a Tsunami.

Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at Mr Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” doesn’t stand up very well to any real scientific investigation. His message is great, but it’s not based on any reliable science that I’m aware of. And then of course we just had the head of the IPCC resign in February 2010. He said to pursue private consultancy work, but I wouldn’t want to be the head of the panel as the truth is floating to surface as it always does.

It took until 2010 for the truth to become evident that man made global warming was a crock, but half the planet still believes it. At least we have been temporarily saved from the likes of Cap and Trade and equally ridiculous measures by many UN countries that in fact amount to a great big tax on everything, for the moment.

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

When you read some of those files, including 1079 emails and 72 documents, you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”.

Suppression of evidence:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Skeptic scientists:

“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat

the crap out of him. Very tempted”.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

“Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.”

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

“Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millennium. CRU was also the organization which – in contravention of all acceptable behavior in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.”

In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever more virulent campaigns conducted by eco fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an airplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “skeptical” view, which some of us have been expressing for quite some time. In WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK is now, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve got a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover. (Source) James Delingpole: Author of, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work.

Many scientists, although remaining mostly unheard in the mainstream media, said that the UN conference on climate change in Bali in 2007 was a complete sham. Approximately 100 prominent scientists signed an open letter to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, clearly slamming the current IPCC process as a complete fraud.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ¬government -representatives. The great ¬majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists, who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often-repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.

But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; I.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic cooling’s and warming’s are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Bio systems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S. Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta. R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University, Australia. Hans Erren, Doctor andus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia. William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydro climatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'I Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'I at Manoa. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut. Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007. William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology. Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands. Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsHans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS. Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand. William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif .Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph. John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia. Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden. Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CAS. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville. Peter Stilbs, Tekn D, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand. Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant. Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia.- A Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy. (Source: National Post Tuesday December 18th 2007)

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Report Released on December 20, 2007 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote.

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations and scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

Paleo-climatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to "flat Earth society members" and similar in number to those who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleo-climatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is "settled." A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears

Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006)

CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually."

On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels."

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members."

Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet."

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there - but that's not the case."

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears.

UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question the UN’s scientific “consensus."

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming.

Yet another attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists.

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 and 2002. Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period 0.3C warmer than 20th century.

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insulation changes." These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not big on politics or Politicians, but I spent more than a little time wondering why George W Bush and John Howard wouldn’t sign the USA and Australia into the Kyoto Protocol. Now I understand completely. They were not prepared to tax their citizens hundreds of billions of dollars without solid scientific evidence. Now if those guys with all the resources and the scientists they have at their disposal couldn’t find any evidence, then common sense dictates that nobody is going to.

Elderly People Freeze to Death

Sofia: Three people died and hundreds of motorists were stranded when heavy snow caused chaos in Bulgaria yesterday. People were warned against travelling as snow up to 1m covered parts of the Balkan country and temperatures dropped to minus 16c. The Danube River was partially iced over.

An 82-year-old woman and a 66-year-old man froze to death. A 32-year-old man, who needed dialysis treatment in hospital, died when rescue workers failed to reach his home.

Three days of heavy snowfall and high winds have cut electricity supplies to more than 70 villages and towns.

Meteorologists said snow was expected to continue in the northeast where all municipalities had declared a state of emergency and army bulldozers were struggling to rescue stranded villages and motorists, and clear roads.

Bad weather grounded flights at the Black Sea airport of Varna in the northeast, but Bulgaria’s biggest port of Varna was open.

On the 11th of January 2008 it was also on the evening news that Bagdad has experienced snow for the first time in known history.

Civil defense workers rescued 61 passengers from a train in the north. A helicopter is expected to deliver food supplies to 70 tourists trapped in a mountain lodge in central Bulgaria, officials said.

In the US, a fierce Arctic storm has pounded California, threatening to soak mudslide-prone canyons already charred by fires and paralyze the mountains with deep snow.

Power was cut to hundreds of thousands of residents and the California Highway Patrol encouraged drivers to stay off roads. Truckers were told to wait out blizzard like conditions over mountain passes in the Sierra Nevada. Some Ski resorts had closed.

The sprawling, swirling storm system spanned the length of the west coast. Winds howled in the mountain areas, gusting up to 137km/h, and parts of highways from Sacramento to San Francisco were closed because debris blocked lanes. Ocean tides were expected to swell to 9 meters, prompting the US Coast Guard to caution boaters to remain in port. (Source; the Sunday Times WA: January 6th 2008)

The cold snaps and freezing weather have continued right up until this present time in 2010.

Bankers go for Green genocide

Reserve Bank board member (Australia) Warwick McKibbin has just announced support for a carbon tax, combined with a carbon-trading scheme. “Make no mistake: the "climate change" swindle run by the British financial oligarchy and supported by our complicit mainstream media, will tax us to death—no pun intended. This tax-and-trade scheme will shut down our farmers and manufacturers and ram up the price of petrol, gas, and electricity—and it’s all based on one big scientific scam.” Whether accidental or semi intentional the London centered financial oligarchy may have no problem with mass genocide, as the following quotes from their assets in the Green movement clearly demonstrate. Reading the comments below made by apparently caring and respectable greenies should cause concern to any individual interested in upholding personal freedom and human rights. I used to believe that these organizations were saving the planet. Now I am seriously beginning to wonder what the real agenda is.

One may consider the following quotations as simply emotive off the cuff comments, even if this is so? I’m not inclined to place too much trust in any organization that has leader’s members and organizers who would even think such things let alone say them publicly. If there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary about the existence of manmade global warming, then what exactly is the real agenda?

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Prince Philip reported by Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), August 1988. Prince Philip, first President of WWF-UK from its foundation in 1961 to 1982, and President of WWF-International from 1981 to 1996, is now President Emeritus for WWF. He was a founder of the Australian Conservation Foundation and its President from 1971 to 1976.

“One humane way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile. Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception. A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solvable." Dr John Reid speaking with Robyn Williams on ABC radio, 10 December 2006.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit, June 1992.

"At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per day. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars.... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are mostly indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s happiness" - Lord Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953.

"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." Jacques Cousteau, co-recipient in 1977 (with Sir Peter Scott) of the International Environmental Prize awarded by the United Nations for outstanding contributions in the field of the environment. Quoted from UNESCO Courier, November 1991.

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." Carl Amery, Founding member of the German Green Party, quoted in Mensch & Energie, April 1983.

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace, as quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990).

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

David Brower, first executive director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute.

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." Dr Lyall Watson, anthropologist, Commissioner for the International Whaling Commission, as quoted in the Financial Times, 15 July 1995.

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." Dr Lamont Cole, Professor of Ecology, Cornell University, as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror.

"The world has cancer, and that cancer is man." Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation, quoted from Harpeth Journal, Dec. 18, 1962.

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." Ted Turner, media mogul, as quoted in Audubon, November-December 1991.

The Truth Will Always Out

After the media induced hysteria died down and the head of the IPCC resigned in embarrassment at the collapse of the Copenhagen summit amid the now infamous email leaks from the dud scientists at The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, people are waking up in droves. The game is almost up and the real scientists are finally being heard. Even so much of the so called science is not so scientific at all. At a ground breaking seminar in Chicago USA during three days in May 2010, seventy three distinguished real scientists will present their findings at what could aptly be described as the first scientific man made global warming truth summit.

The mainstream media over the past few days has been pushing a letter published in Science magazine signed by 255 scientists claiming “potentially catastrophic climate change,” but many of the signatories have absolutely no atmospheric science background or training, writes Tony Hake for the Miami Examiner.

“An investigation into the professional backgrounds of the scientists finds that many do not work in climate science and some work in fields not even remotely related to it. In fact, among the first 20 listed, none work in climate science,” writes Hake.

“Pediatric surgeons, an expert in the Maya and the Olmec civilizations, a chemist that studies bacteria, a ‘computer pioneer’ with Microsoft, an electrical engineer, the chairman of a biotechnology firm, and even an expert studying corn are but a few of the 255 ‘experts’ that signed the letter,” Hake explains.

Even so, the 255 signatories is less than 1/10th the number of scientists who have signed a letter, known as the Oregon Petition, stating humans are not causing a global warming crisis.

The letter from the 255 scientists has already attracted substantial criticism, as it was accompanied in Science magazine by a fake photograph of a polar bear appearing stranded on a small iceberg. It turns out a picture of a polar bear was superimposed on a picture of the small iceberg for dramatic – if not truthful – effect.

It is only appropriate, many global warming “skeptics” note, that misleading assertions are accompanied by a misleading photograph.

According to a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Americans don't consider global warming to be anywhere near a top priority for President Barack Obama and Congress this year, in fact since the public have woken up to the con the priority of global warming has dropped to only 28 on the scale of importance.

Since Kevin Rudd’s “Emission Trading Scheme,” ETS, and Barack Obama's preferred approach to global warming “Cap and Trade” or energy tax legislation would destroy the nation's economy and kill jobs, it would seem pretty clear the president ought to steer clear of such policies. After what just happened on health care reform, it's unlikely the American people will tolerate being so completely ignored again.

Edited 14/07/11 10:33 PM by hypnodoc

[Tobey]

Toby it seems that you have been watching too much of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Half Truth" and listening to WWF tin rattlers, China will dump as much evil C02 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as what Aus does in 2 years and they will use our coal to do it.

All this tax we will pay is never going to change that fact one bit, plus China is smart enough to realise that man made global warming is a CROCK anyway. Plus if you want to drive a Prius or some other "non real car" go for your life. And as far as your assumption about 2050 is concerned most of us oldies have kids that we love who will be here in 2050.

As Tim has said, China have been moving forward with green energy, including renewable energy from Russia. Good to see the Global Warming sceptics are held in higher regard to scientists in this country.

Then why are you opposed to doing something about climate change? How, after all this time can you possibly still think, that us as humans play no part in the warming of the planet?