Sunday, July 31, 2011

THE BIOFUEL HOAX IS CAUSING A WORLD FOOD CRISIS!

On December 19th, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law
the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandates massive
increases in the production of ethanol to be used as "biofuel" to run
automobiles and trucks. Ethanol is currently made from corn and other
foodstuffs, and all the various forms of biofuel, including
"biodiesel," are made from food or inedible crops which displace
normal agricultural activity. Biofuel crops include corn, sugarcane,
cassava, rapeseed, soybeans, palm trees (for palm oil), as well as
experimental "second generation" crops such as switchgrass, giant
reed, jatropha, hemp, and algae. In 2007, 54% of the world's corn was
grown in the USA, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop ended
up in gas tanks instead of stomachs. Ethanol production took only 7%
of American corn in 1998, but has grown as a cancer on our food
supply, taking 37 to 38% by 2007 (reference Fermenting the Food Supply
by Stuart Staniford).

The amount of corn required to fill the 18.5 gallon gas tank of a
Toyota Camry with ethanol is enough to feed a human being for 270
days. At current levels of biofuel production, this "renewable energy
source" has already caused huge increases in the price of food around
the world, which can be experienced firsthand at any supermarket in
America. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), global food prices rose 40% in the year 2007
alone, producing the highest food cost level on record, and qualifying
2007 as a year of food price hyperinflation! Unfortunately, few
consumers/voters understand exactly why food prices have risen so
dramatically, and even our most respected politicians do not
comprehend the inevitable global food disaster that lies just ahead
(see Clinton And Obama On Iran And Biofuels) and which they have
created.

The United Nations has officially stated that its charity
programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the
world because of high food costs created by biofuel production.
Earlier this year, Jean Ziegler, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food, denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity" and
called for a five-year moratorium on their production. Local food
banks in the United States are running low on supplies, and many
families who use to contribute to food banks are now in need of help
themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on
artificially high prices created by government biofuel mandates, they
reduce production of other crops and thus food prices rise across the
board. We use corn to feed chickens and cattle, so the price of
poultry, eggs, beef, and dairy products has risen substantially and
will continue to rise with no end in sight.

The advocacy and use of biofuels is one of the greatest political
hoaxes in American history. The ideology of biofuel production sounds
wholesome superficially, a kind of green, health food store way of
producing energy. The problem is that our current biofuel scheme is
based on political and economic selfishness, without legitimate
science based ecological justification.

1) Biofuel production starves the poor and reduces our standard of
living by dramatically increasing the cost of food, which we all need
just to survive. Of course the homeless, the elderly, the disabled,
and those living on Social Security and other fixed incomes are the
hardest hit. Most Americans do not realize that global food reserves
are at historic lows, while proven global oil reserves are at historic
highs. The United States alone has vast untouched oil reserves in
Alaska, just waiting to be pumped, but our politicians have incredibly
decided to trade food and thus human lives for oil instead.

2) Biofuel production increases our Federal budget deficit because it
demands large subsidies to exist. Without massive Federal subsidies
and political mandates, there would be no significant free market
demand for biofuels at all. Ethanol has less energy per gallon than
gasoline, so the new ethanol blended fuels will reduce our gas mileage
at a time we are all paying record high prices at the pump. Our
biofuel schemes are energy socialism gone terribly wrong.

3) Biofuel production harms the environment by needlessly eroding
topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are
desperately needed to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major greenhouse gas that
causes global warming, and the two great sponges of carbon dioxide are
the oceans and the forests. The oceans are losing their ability to
absorb CO2 as they are becoming increasingly acidic due to pollution,
so if we also destroy our forests global warming will accelerate that
much faster. Do we really want to annihilate forests all over the
world, from Indonesia to Pennsylvania, just to have more land to grow
biofuel crops to burn as fuel in our SUVs? Biofuel schemes speed up
global warming because the entire biofuel production process, from
beginning to end, releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere while destroying native forests which naturally clean and
rejuvenate the air we breathe.

Roland Clift, a senior science advisor to the British Government,
has stated that British plans to promote ethanol and biodiesel
produced from plants is a "scam." On the subject of tropical
biodiesel production, Clift states that "Biodiesel is a complete scam
because in the tropics the growing demand is causing forests to be
burnt to make way for palm trees (to make palm oil) and similar
crops. "We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops
for 70 to 300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest
destruction."

Scientists point out that using nitrogen fertilizers, which are
made from natural gas, coal, and mined minerals, generates large
amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296
times more effective at trapping heat than CO2. Farming contributes
more to global warming than all forms of motorized land, sea, and air
transportation combined, so growing vast amounts of crops for biofuel
will heat up the earth's atmosphere faster than if we only used
imported Saudi Arabian oil. Biofuel crop production also aggravates
water shortages because irrigation water is taken away from our
shrinking supplies of safe drinking water. Biofuels are a losing
proposition on every level, except for the big profits giant
agricultural corporations will make producing them.

4) America's "biofuel energy independence plan" is a scientific hoax
and an economic fraud because all current American production methods
use more energy to create biofuels than they yield in the form of
biofuel itself. We have to use large amounts of coal, natural gas,
and oil just to manufacture biofuels. Supporters hope that second and
third generation biofuel crops will generate more energy than they
take to produce, but those schemes have yet to be proven in the real
world. Our Congress has decided to mandate first and prove later!
Even proposed second and third generation biofuel plants do not
eliminate the tremendous environmental damage that massive biofuel
production will cause. At the recent Conference on Climate Change
held in Bali, several studies were presented detailing the dangers of
making automobile fuels from crops. Respected scientists warned that
biofuel production is destructive to the environment and will not give
us the clean "renewable energy" its advocates claim. Just a few days
after the Bali conference ended, America's political leaders enacted a
new law mandating massive increases in biofuel production, the science
and the facts be damned.

5) The biofuel hoax was created to a large degree by domestic
American politics and corporate greed. Both the Democratic and
Republican Parties want to get the "farm vote" in politically
strategic states like Iowa, Ohio, and Nebraska. Our leaders have put
political gain ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on
fixed incomes, and the welfare of the American middle class. Rich
politicians can afford to pay the dramatically higher food bills that
biofuel production creates, and they have decided to throw science to
the wind and charge blindly into what will inevitably be branded as
one of the most destructive political fiascoes of the 21st century.
Ambitious young biofuel entrepreneurs and giant agricultural
corporations smell the money to be made, and have lobbied Congress and
President Bush in hopes of turning the farm belt into the Saudi Arabia
of "renewable energy," even if the energy they supply comes at the
cost of human starvation and accelerated environmental damage.

6) Making cellulosic ethanol from lignocellulose, a structural
material that comprises much of the mass of plants, is better than
making ethanol from corn, but still has most of the drawbacks of
ethanol made from food crops. Growing lignocellulose yielding grasses
on land we currently use to graze cattle will increase the price of
beef and milk. We will still have to use fertilizers made from
natural gas and coal to make inedible crops grow, and the entire
process will erode topsoil and increase the price of food.

If we grow switchgrass on "marginal" prairie land, we will soon
turn that marginal land into a dust bowl, which it may turn into
anyway due to global warming, which biofuel use will not stop.
Computer models for the progression of global warming show the America
Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of our farm
and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel use will
do nothing to stop this progression, so why are we pinning so much
hope on an environmental battle plan that any fool can see will blow
up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce enough biofuels
to run our cars, or enough food to fill our bellies! The biofuel
scheme is another example of a basic lack of intelligence of our
politicians, many of whom also voted for the disastrous Iraq War
despite the warnings of more thoughtful advisers. If you cannot plan
ahead and anticipate future trends, then you will lead this nation
into one disaster after another, and that is exactly what is happening
in Washington DC at this very moment. Our Congress has become a
chorus of stupidity, and our politicians are leading us to national
suicide, not to the nirvana of energy independence.

The very process of making cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass
and other plants has not been proven to be economically viable, and
the Bush energy bill assumes new scientific breakthroughs that have
not yet occurred. Many of the plants being proposed as lignocellulose
yielding crops are weeds which will have a destructive impact on
wildlife and biodiversity around the world. In practical terms, there
is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of
biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands. "The biofuel
potential of the entire human food supply is quite a small amount of
energy compared to the global oil supply - somewhere between 15 to 20%
on a volumetric basis, so 10 to 15% on an energy basis." - Quote from
Stuart Staniford in Fermenting the Food Supply.

The prospect of growing algae to make biodiesel has much more
positive potential than making ethanol from switchgrass, but large
open algae sewage ponds are difficult to manage due to contamination
from invasive algae and bacteria, and the inherent problem of finding
an algae that will survive wide swings in temperature and pH. If an
algae based biofuel system can be developed that uses only a small
amount of land, and produces much more energy than it takes to
manufacture, then algae biodiesel production might be a positive
venture that we all can support. To date there has been no proof that
such a system is viable or truly carbon neutral. If you have to run
algae farms off the waste of coal fired power plants, as has been
proposed, then you have a band-aid solution that will not stop global
warming in its tracks, which is what we need to do if we want our
children to survive on this planet. Algae biofuel production deserves
research funding, but any biofuel manufacturing process should be
tested and proven environmentally safe and food supply friendly by
scientists with no vested economic or political interest in the matter
before being mandated by law.

Dramatic increases in food prices created by biofuel production
will cause political instability around the globe, because food
products are sold in a world wide marketplace just like oil. There
have already been mass public protests and food riots in Mexico,
Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Senegal and Indonesia over the high price
of basic staple foods. Imagine the political instability in Central
and South America, Africa, India, and Pakistan that runaway food price
inflation will cause. Will a starving Pakistan, armed with nuclear
weapons, make the world a safer place? If American politicians lead
us down a path to global use of biofuels, we will be leading the world
into a historic disaster that can easily kill more people due to
starvation than have been killed in the Iraq War by bullets and
bombs.

If we truly wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we will have
to create an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved electric
car battery technology, and hydrogen fuel, not on biofuels. Hydrogen
releases water vapor when burned, and is the cleanest burning fuel
known to man. Hydrogen can be used in both internal combustion
engines and in fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel can be made through the
electrolysis of water via electricity generated from zero emissions
nuclear power plants, which currently produce about 19.4% of our
nation's electricity. We need to build large numbers of nuclear power
plants now using mass production techniques if we want to end global
warming. Otherwise, we will just continue talking endlessly about the
subject with no positive effect.

Nuclear power plants do not contribute to global warming because
they release no greenhouse gases at all. You do not need much land to
build a nuclear power plant, and you do not need to make fertilizer to
make nuclear energy grow. Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to
attack by viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects, or competing weeds, as
are biofuel crops. We need to get off the organic carbon cycle for
energy production and use inorganic nuclear power to produce the
highly concentrated energy supply that solar and wind power can never
hope to provide. Even by the most optimistic estimates, solar and
wind power can only hope to satisfy perhaps 20% of our future energy
needs. Solar and wind power tap into natural energy sources that are
far too diffuse to be collected on a large enough scale to power an
advanced, industrialized nation. Solar and wind power currently
produce only about 2.4% of our nation's electricity, so even an
increase to 20% would be a major undertaking.

One of the added benefits of nuclear power is that we already own
huge amounts of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear weapons materials,
which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian power production.
The United States Government has hundreds of years worth of nuclear
fuel in storage thanks to the Cold War nuclear arms race of the 1950s
and 1960s. We can turn our swords into plowshares while paying only
the modest costs of converting high level weapons grade materials into
lower level fuel rods suitable for power production. Unlike oil, we
do not have to import nuclear fuel from foreign countries or fight
endless foreign wars to protect our supplies. We have the fuel and
it's already paid for!

Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because
only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during
each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little
high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored. The nuclear "waste"
is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and that is part of the reason why
France's nuclear power program has been so successful. France relies
heavily on nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel reprocessing, and
thus France has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in
Europe.

The fears many Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants
are largely unfounded. Our latest nuclear reactor designs are
carefully engineered with many layers of redundant safety and security
features built-in. One single disaster that occurred at an obsolete
Ukrainian reactor is no reason to be eternally afraid of all nuclear
power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used a
dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did
not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was
caused by Soviet engineers conducting wildly irresponsible experiments
that were totally unrelated to normal civilian power production, and
which would never be allowed in the USA. The Chernobyl accident
killed a total of 56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing
disaster. Far fewer people died at Chernobyl than on Japan Airlines
Flight 123 in 1985, when a lone 747 jetliner crashed and killed all
520 passengers. Americans suffer over 40,000 deaths due to automobile
accidents every year, yet there is no great human cry to ban
automobiles.

Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for
safety and for clean, pollution free operation. By contrast, the over
600 coal burning power plants which produce approximately 49% of our
nation's electricity emit sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, which
combine with moisture in the atmosphere to form destructive acid
rain. America's coal burning power plants release approximately
200,000 pounds of toxic mercury every year, and an enormous skyward
bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents nearly 10% of all
CO2 emissions worldwide. A single 1,000 megawatt coal burning power
plant can release as much as 12.8 tons of thorium and 5.2 tons of
uranium every year, both radioactive metals which naturally occur in
coal. The uranium figure includes 74 pounds of uranium-235, the
highly fissionable form of uranium used to make atomic bombs. Coal
burning power plants also release microscopic particulate matter which
clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000
unnatural premature deaths in the United States every year, which is
428 times the Chernobyl death toll.

Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so
much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The
answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a
Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck (The
China Syndrome, The Simpsons, etc.), and by scientifically
undereducated politicians and environmental activists. There has
never been a single death attributed to American nuclear power plants,
which produce electricity at an average cost of less than 3 cents per
kilowatt-hour (latest 2008 estimate), a rate comparable to
hydroelectric power and less than natural gas or coal. The cost of
coal power is even more expensive if you figure in damage to buildings
due to acid rain and other air pollutants, and increased human health
costs: the monetary value of 24,000 human lives plus those who are
simply made ill.

Building newer, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant
designs using mass production techniques for major structural and
control components will bring the cost down even further. For the
total US cost of the Iraq War, estimated to be well over 2,000 billion
dollars (2 trillion), we could have built at least 500 1,600 megawatt
nuclear power plants, outputting 800,000 megawatts total. That would
have given us virtual energy independence, almost doubling our current
national electric generating capacity of 906,155 megawatts (peak
capacity for 2006).

Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an
extremely high volume of energy using only a tiny amount of land and
at reasonable cost, all without emitting any greenhouse gases. That
is why the father of Gaia theory, British atmospheric scientist James
Lovelock, stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large
human population on planet earth without causing global warming and
destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public
statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green solution,
at:
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

The economic benefits of a nuclear based, hydrogen fueled economy
are spectacular, and the United States foreign trade deficit and
Federal budget deficit can be greatly reduced. All of the nuclear
reactors will be built and run by Americans in America, who will make
high wages and pay taxes to Federal, state, and local governments, and
spend their income at local American stores. As the USA currently
imports over 60% of its oil supply, all of the dollars we now ship off
to Canada (18%), Mexico (15%), Saudi Arabia (14%), Nigeria (12%),
Venezuela (10%), and Angola (6%) will stay right here in the USA. In
the year 2007, the USA is estimated to have imported a total of about
3.8 billion barrels of crude oil in addition to a tremendous amount of
natural gas and other hydrocarbon products which can largely be
replaced by nuclear power. At $93. a barrel (12/24/07 price), 3.8
billion barrels of crude oil is worth over 353. billion dollars. A
nuclear based hydrogen economy will make the United States richer in
addition to saving us from desertification of our heartland, increased
storm damage, coastal flooding, and world wide starvation caused by
the deadly combination of global warming and massive, government
mandated biofuel production.

Hydrogen fuel produced by nuclear energy will be expensive at
first, but the price will decline over time as the infrastructure
grows and economies of scale lower production costs. Electric car
battery technology is constantly improving and will allow Americans to
drive our highways without guilt that they are burning up precious
natural resources or polluting the environment. If you modify a
Toyota Prius by giving it a hydrogen capable gas tank, slightly alter
its internal combustion engine so that it can run on hydrogen gas, and
rewire its electrical system so that its batteries can be plugged into
a charging station, then you have an excellent hydrogen-electric
hybrid automobile right now. The nuclear based hydrogen economy is
achievable with current technology and is a long term investment in
America's future that will pay increasingly larger dividends every
year. [also see General Motor's prototype hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle]

If we wish a fast, short term fix to rising oil prices, then
drilling in the Alaska ANWR oil reserve will do far less environmental
damage than plunging ahead with biofuel production. Scientific
studies show that drilling at ANWR with modern, low land use
techniques will have a minuscule, inconsequential impact on vegetation
and wildlife. Opposition to ANWR drilling represents emotional
symbolism, not good science or responsible national energy policy.
Using Alaskan oil will create new American jobs, reduce the Federal
budget and foreign trade deficits, and help lower food prices. One
positive idea would be to use Federal revenues from sale of the ANWR
reserves to help fund the switchover to a national nuclear-hydrogen
infrastructure.

If you do not want food prices to double, triple, or even
quadruple in the next ten years, then write your political
representatives and tell them that you do not want to waste food
production resources on biofuels. State the obvious fact that food
prices are already too high and that you want all biofuel mandates and
manufacturing subsidies ended. If this is done you will soon see food
prices declining instead of rising, your local food banks will become
full again, and the United Nations and other charitable organizations
will be able to meet their moral obligations to help feed the world's
starving masses. With a world wide human population of over 6.6
billion people and growing, we cannot afford to feed our families and
at the same time use precious farm and grazing land to produce
biofuels.

On December 19th, 2007, when the United States Congress voted for
massive increases in biofuel production during a time of worldwide
food price hyperinflation, the message they gave the low income people
of the world was very clear; LET THEM EAT BIOFUEL! Is the
unintentional starvation inflicted on the world by thoughtless
American politicians any more morally excusable than the intentional
starvation of innocent civilians ordered by infamous dictators during
times of war?

Christopher Calder
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Last updated at 5:12 PM on 31st June 2011

  • Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes
Professor Phil Jones
 
Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. 
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
 
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.


Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Even the Criminals of Climategate Avoid Gore

No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more.

By Dr. Tim Ball  Wednesday, December 16, 2009


“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”—Mark Twain
Twain’s observation is precisely the issue with the Nobel Peace Prizes given to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC are now completely discredited because the ‘scientists’ at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia controlled the data, the computer models and the press releases officially known as the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
Their prizes were obtained for work deliberately falsified then used for policies that creates unnecessary hardship rather than peace. Equally disgraceful is how one prizewinner, Al Gore, distorted and falsified the distortions and falsifications of the other prizewinner, the IPCC.
Gore was already discredited, especially when his carbon footprint was found too big for his mouth. Other discredits include; the millions he made from his misdirection on carbon; failure to answer questions or participate in debate; character assassination of scientists who raised legitimate questions; the false claim that “the science is settled”, and failure to correct the major errors in his movie An Inconvenient Truth”. Gore must have created a major dilemma for the IPCC and CRU.
A minor dilemma was the contradiction over projected sea level rise. The IPCC 2001 Report said, “Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990 and 2100,”. The 2007 Report raised the lower projection to 0.18 m but significantly lowered the upper limit to 0.59 m. In his ridiculous movie, Gore predicted a 20 ft (6m) rise but gave no time frame. Recently he made the false statement that the Arctic ice cap is the size of the continental US. Wrong! That is the amount that melts and refreezes every year. Then he said it would be all gone in 5 to 10 years, but ice this year has already recovered what it lost in the last few years.
Now, in a more bizarre twist, we learn Gore’s claim about the Arctic ice came from another scientist, Dr. Wieslav Maslowski. The professor then claimed Gore misquoted him, but his prediction was published in a Danish journal.
The problem is they’re both wrong, but that is the pattern of the climate issue. Lies on lies on lies create the tangled web Sir Walter Scott predicted when you practice deception.
But Gore doesn’t stop. There are academics and scientists lining up to provide him with more false information. He incorrectly claims Antarctica and Greenland are melting. Maybe he got the Antarctic idea from the false research produced by some at CRU that Antarctica is warming.
And he is still at it with incredibly stupid comments. On the Conan O’Brien show of 11/12/09, he said the temperature in the mantle, the deep layer immediately below the crust, is several million degrees just two kilometers down. This is many times hotter than the Sun. It is truly frightening to think this man was one step away from the Presidency, no wonder Clinton didn’t support his presidential run.
The CRU gang had to know what Gore was presenting in his movie and speeches, yet I am unable to find any direct reference to him in their emails.  When they occur it is in outsider emails. I am unaware of any public comments by CRU people about Gore’s work; it appears they studiously avoided him. You must be bad when the criminals avoid you.
Gore says the emails “don’t change established conclusions.” “These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
Well he got that completely wrong too but it’s not surprising because he misinterpreted their original work. Maybe he is relying on another academic source. Trevor Davis, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Research at the University of East Anglia
says, “There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”
What planet is this Davis on? Besides the clear evidence of criminality there is also the deliberate falsification of the science and perversion of the scientific publication and peer review process. His statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the email content and climate science. Like Watergate the problems of Climategate are compounded by the cover-up and nobody does it better than universities. Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU gang.
Of course, they were bringing in massive amounts of funding and that apparently bought Davis’s support. I watched funding create disturbing behavior and biases throughout academia.
No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more. Of course, they couldn’t denounce him because they might expose their own corruption. Together they achieved only one success by disproving the adage that there is honor among thieves.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY !

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2)
Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6)
Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trend

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13)
Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14)
In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15)
Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18)
Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19)
A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century – within natural rates
21)
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23)
It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28)
Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29)
The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30)
The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31)
Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32)
Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34)
It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36)
There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37)
One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38)
The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41)
Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42)
The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44)
The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46)
The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47)
In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48)
The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49)
The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.


50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
51)
Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52)
Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot


55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.  
56)
The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57)
William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58)
Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60)
The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 
61)
The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62)
Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63)
It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65)
The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 

67)
Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68)
The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69)
In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70)
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71)
Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72)
The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 

73)
The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74)
To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75)
In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 

76)
Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77)
Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79)
Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80)
A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81)
The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82)
  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83)
The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85)
Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86)
There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87)
The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88)
Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90)
Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91)
The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94)
The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96)
Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100)
A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

The Carbon Tax Truth and who will reap the profits.Gillard sells off Australia!

Saturday, July 30, 2011

NEW NASA DATA BLOWS HOLE IN GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM !


NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
 
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

GDS International Investigates Global Warming Scam

The global warming scam is the biggest hoax in history, according to some. Started by Al Gore in 1995, the global warming scam is responsible for a great deal of alarm throughout the world population. Also known as "climate change", there are both believers that feel it is real, and non-believers who are certain that there is no such thing.
According to Earthpro.info, the global warming scam is the biggest scam in history. This site proposes that environmental and political motives were behind the manipulations of long-term scientific data by some less than reputable scientists. As government continued to fuel the movement with large research grants, more unscrupulous scientist jumped on the band wagon. Eventually, the global warming scam was taking hold all over the world, though most were completely gullible and believed all of the hype.
Over the years, many things have been attributed to the global warming scam; people were convinced that insecticides, car fuel emissions and other "greenhouse" gases, carbon dioxide and other substances were contributing to the future condition of the atmosphere for our children. Today, there are people who are still taken in by the global warming scam, but the topic is not as threatening as it once was.
Many believe the topic has long been overblown and misdirected. Below you will find some of the most convincing evidence that the global warming scam is just that - a scam.
Evidence really is not so convincing, according to scientists. A group of more than 17,000 scientists found that the human release of methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not contribute significantly to the heating or destruction of the Earth's climate or atmosphere.
Scientists study temperatures in the lower troposphere via satellite readings. Temperatures in this area are the most indicative of global warming, if it were real. These reliable sources show no warming in the years since this method has been in use some 30 years ago.
Urban development generates heat, which is why some land-based temperature stations show higher than average temperature readings; as the land continues to be developed in to crowded suburban, city and metropolitan areas, a higher temperature reading is normal.
The global warming scam has long been a threat and even a frightening thought to many; even efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions in a rapid manner would not affect the fact that the Earth's climate is changing. What it would do is cost billions of dollars, as attempting to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions requires much higher energy taxes.
The global warming scam, according to some, is simply a ruse designed to enable environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in government grants and contributions. Is it a hoax, or isn't it? Some believe that the global warming scam is simply an attempt by politicians and unethical scientists to predict doom and gloom, while wasting big money to fund their cause. Whether or not global warming is a scam is still a question in the minds of many; perhaps this is a topic that will not be resolved in our life time.

Mark the carbon tax propaganda "Return to Sender" (or Prime Minister Julia Gillard)

The Gillard Government has launched its $4 million mail- out to households as part of its $25 million campaign to try to sell its toxic carbon dioxide tax.

Here’s a thought – let’s channel Elvis and his old hit Return to Sender. Rather than just dumping the expensive package in the trash, send it back to its source. Or better yet, if it has no sender’s address, forward it to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
As Elvis said, then she’ll understand the writing on it …
I’ve also mentioned this idea to the guys at Menzies House, so it might become an effective campaign of rejection.




And here is the PM's official Parliament House address:

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
 If you get several propaganda packs delivered to the same household, send them to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and Treasurer Wayne Swan as well.
The roads will soon be packed with trucks and other vehicles taking part in the Convoy of No Confidence in the Federal Government, so clog the Labor leaders' letter boxes with another clear message: Australians reject a carbon tax which will harm our jobs, small businesses and major industries by giving a big advantage to our direct competitors who have no carbon tax.
With Australia producing just 1.4 percent of global CO2 emissions, and our coal exports going to countries with no carbon tax, it will not reduce total emissions or have any effect on climate.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Convoy of no confidence is amassing towards Canberra!

Something beautiful is unfolding. From all over Australia, people whose businesses and jobs are being driven into the ground by spectacular government mismanagement are gathering to drive from the corners of the continent to converge on Canberra to demand an election.
Convoy of No Confidence
Cars, utes and semitrailers are descending on Canberra from all over the country
The productive class may not have easy rent-a-crowds for rallies and chirpy letter campaigns, but they have something that the keen teens do not — they have capital assets — in this case, assets that move.
When it’s obvious money and choices are being poured down a bottomless well, people are prepared to go that extra mile, or in this case the extra 4,000.*
It started with Mick Pattel –  a livestock transporter from North West Queensland — who suffered a 50 percent drop in business when the Federal Government banned live exports to Indonesia. According to Beef Central he declared that the time has come for a re-election. The owner/driver from Richmond, who also serves as president of the National Road Freighters Association, started planning a protest convoy to drive from northern Australia to the lawns of Parliament House in August.
“He hopes to generate enough support and media attention via the “vote of no confidence” convoy to convince the Governor General to dissolve the parliament or to convince Julia Gillard to go back to the polls. “
The central planning for the Convoy is at Just Grounds, though facebook sites have sprung up to feed into it too. Organisers appear to have been astounded by the demand and with so many cars and trucks wanting to join up they are changing plans, adding convoys, and even splitting some convoys to cover different routes. Some people are travelling out to the far reaches so they can join the convoys from the start.
For preliminary dates: See below.
Convoy number 1. Please put BROWN balloon /streamers to show your convoy.
16th of August Port Hedland WA to Halls Creek WA
17th August Halls Creek WA to Katherine NT
Please note People from Darwin are to travel down to Katherine this day 17th of August.
18th Katherine NT to Mt Isa Qld
19th Mt Isa Qld to Blackall Qld
20th Blackall Qld to Bourke NSW
21st August Bourke NSW to Cowra NSW
22nd August Cowra NSW to Canberra
Convoy number 2.Please put PINK balloon/ streamers to show your convoy.
18th August Cairns Qld to Townsville Qld
19th August Townsville Qld to Springsure Qld
20th August Springsure Qld to Dirranbandi Qld
21st August Dirranbandi Qld to Forbes NSW
22nd August Forbes NSW to Canberra
Convoy number 3. Please put BLUE balloon/ streamers to show your convoy.
20th August Rockhampton Qld to Goondiwindi Qld
21st August Goondiwindi Qld to Parkes NSW
22nd August Parkes NSW to Canberra
Convoys from Brisbane. Please note there are 2.
Brisbane Convoy 4 Please put Yellow balloon /streamers to show your convoy.
20th August Brisbane Qld  to Tamworth NSW (Via Warwick)
21st August Tamworth NSW to Coonabarabran to Parkes NSW
22nd August Parkes NSW to Canberra
Brisbane Convoy 5 Please put WHITE balloon /streamers to show your convoy.
20th August Brisbane Qld to Beresfield NSW
21st August Beresfield NSW to — running through Sydney to Canberra.
Convoy number 6. Please put ORANGE balloon/ streamers to show your convoy.
17th August Perth WA to Norseman WA
18th Norseman WA to Nullarbor Road House WA
19th Nullarbor Road House WA to Port Augusta SA
20th August Port Augusta SA to Mildura Vic
21st Mildura Vic to Wagga NSW
22nd August Wagga NSW to Canberra
Convoy number 7. Please put PURPLE balloon / streamers to show your convoy.
21st August Adelaide SA to either Narrandera / or Wagga tbc
22nd Narrandera / or Wagga tbc to Canberra
Convoy number 8. Please put RED balloon /streamers to show your convoy.
21st August Melbourne Vic to Albury NSW
22nd Albury NSW to Canberra.
———————————————————————————

See Just Grounds for the details.

MAP: Thanks to MapsGet for the map image I added the paths too.
* It would be 5,000-6,000 km from Port Hedland to Canberra. That’s some serious driving.

THE FACTS THAT SHOW THE GOVERNMENT AND GREENS CARBON TAX IS FLAWED.

Here are the facts that show how the Government and Greens carbon tax places an enormous burden on families and business but makes little or no difference to global emissions.
Australia Produces Less then 1.5 percent of the world's global emmisions yet the propsoed tax is set to be by far the world's biggest carbon tax. 
To demonstrate this point : the European Union (EU) has had a price on carbon since 2002. During its first 6-and-a-half years, EU scheme generated $4.9 Billion in tax revenue. In the first 6-and-half-years of Australia’s carbon tax the Government will collect an estimated $71 Billion.None of Australia's trade competitors have a carbon tax or have any plans for a carbon tax.The EU has a limited carbon trading scheme and does not compete with most Australian exports. It is more relevant to compare Australia to resource exporting countries like the USA, Canada, South Africa, China, Indonesia and Brazil. None of these countries have a national carbon tax and none have plans to introduce one any time soon. Australia will be out on its own with the biggest carbon tax in the world.
The tax is designed to flow through the whole economy and make all Australians pay on all things they buy everyday.
 
The Government and Greens own advisor, Ross Garnaut has made it clear in his latest report. He states that "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price."

Even if the Government reaches its target of 5 per cent reductions in emmisions,Australia will only reduce global emmisions by 0.07 per cent.

All the emission reductions Australia plans to make will be dwarfed by the emissions made by much larger countries. For example, by 2020 it will take China just 78 hours and 25 minutes to replace Australia's projected emission savings by 2020.