Sunday, November 18, 2012

Put yourself in Ian Cambridge's position - how would you feel when you found out that your union's lawyer Julia Gillard not only set it up, she knew it was dodgy, she knew Wilson was wanted for fraud and she said nothing - Michael Smith News


You take your job seriously.
You are there to work for your members, to improve their lot, to manage and account for their money.    And if the absolute worst thing should happen to a member at work, to band together and help the bereaved family.
Just imagine how Ian Cambridge would have felt that day.   Now try to think how you would react when you learned much later still that Julia Gillard knew all along.   She knew about the slush fund in 1992.   She went to the auction and did the conveyance of a property bought with slush fund money.   She vouched for her boyfriend's $150,000 mortgage which laundered money he wasn't entitled to (either from the slush fund or the living away from home allowance stolen from the union, he was not entitled to living away from home allowance if he was living in a house he owned in Melbourne).
If you've been reading this blog you are a little bit ahead of the rest of the nation.   Buy The Australian today and encourage your friends to buy it.   It will be a useful guide to some of the parliamentary proceedings in Canberra over the next fornight - The Senate next week and The House the week after.
Julie Bishop asked the Prime Minister why the PM did not discharge her civic duty to report, to authorities, the existence and misuse of the AWUWRA when she became aware Wilson was up to no good (ie by 11 September, 1995 at the latest).   The Prime Minister told the parliament that the AWUWRA was "already the subject of inquiry and investigation".  
Ian Cambridge
Even if it was, that's not enough for a citizen to complete his or her obligation where the citizen has special knowledge of the felony.   Ms Gillard had special information to offer authorities and she did not take it to authorities.  
This week, authorities will be busy hearing from other citizens who take their duty more seriously than does their sub prime minister.
Thanks to Hedley Thomas and The Australian for doing what great newspapers should do.
And how much do you have to learn from Ian Cambridge and the way that he took his job so seriously and did it so diligently.   What a record is revealed by Mr Cambridge's daily synopsis, his dictaphone diary records.

Read full article here: Michael Smith News

"The World of Man-Made Global Warming Supporters is in A Serious State"


Is man-made global warming proved?


 
The answer is a resounding 'no'. There is no convincing scientific evidence for man-made global warming outside of computer models, which do not agree with actual climate data. There is, however, overwhelming evidence to show that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide rises, so carbon dioxide levels cannot be a cause of global warming and any steps taken to reduce emissions are futile.
 
Computer models as used for generating future scenarios have been unable to reproduce actual climate patterns, and are unreliable in the extreme. As the following chart shows, these GCMs, an abbreviation which has been translated as general circulation models or global climate models, predict uniform warming of the lower levels of the atmosphere as a result of man's emission of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, actually a minor greenhouse gas. This man-made warming is predicted to be particularly marked in the last 25 to 30 years, yet actual measurements from satellites and radiosonde balloons show no warming, but slight cooling instead.



In the Beginning
 
An infamous UN-backed statement, that the balance of evidence suggests man has definitely had an impact on climate, has had numerous repercussions. Newspaper headlines, the school curriculum, political careers, and taxes on car drivers have all felt the aftershocks of this proclamation. Yet the chapter and report from which it derives were described by former President of the American Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, as the worst abuse of the peer review process he had seen. Dr Sherwood Idso, then of the Water Conservation Laboratory in Arizona, commented on unauthorised changes made to global climate reports post-review, up to 16 per document. Today the same process continues, in order to present the facade that there is credible scientific evidence to support man-made global warming theory when there is not, and that the human influence brigade reflect the consensus of scientific opinion, which they do not.
 
Climatology professor John Christy is a Lead Author with the IPCC, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike many other Lead Authors he was not appointed by his government, and he considers that this situation arose most likely because the remainder were willing to adopt a particular viewpoint on causes of climate change not dissimilar to the views of their political appointees. Describing a gathering in New Zealand prior to publication of the latest IPCC Report, he mentions how discussion at a meeting was cut short when serious objections were raised to a pet theory of the scientist leading the discussion. Such is the quality of open debate in IPCC circles. 
 
Christy also points out that, in the IPCC's third annual report, a future scenario involving a 6 degree C rise in temperature in the next 100 years was added to the report at a late stage in the review process at the request of a few governments. As is evident, political interference, not scientific reasoning, was responsible for the scary headlines the politicians required in order to justify their plans for taxes on energy and mobility. This extreme 'storyline', labelled A1F1 was one of 245, but it grabbed all the media attention. It required the most extreme outputs of greenhouse gases barely imaginable, the least possible countermeasures, and an atmosphere of the highest sensitivity to these factors. It was described by Christy as "the one that's not going to happen". No wonder that Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany, commented that the IPCC's output of 'storylines' might be more aptly termed 'fairytales'.
 
Underhand activity has also been reported in print, where it seems that IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are not in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not normally choose an author's colleague as a referee. The IPCC has previously assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer — who it is reported based much of his conclusions on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals, definitely non-standard practice. Graphs of temperature have shown incomplete data prior to circulation, in order to strengthen the case for a particular viewpoint, that of man-made global warming. Data sets from dangerously unreliable sources have been included in measurements used for modelling purposes. In some cases the integrity of surface temperature data has been shown to be compromised, with no resulting exclusion from data sets. The list of non-standard practice in the world of IPCC climate 'science' appears to be inordinately lengthy.
 
Wider problems were revealed when in May, 1999, Evan DeLucia and colleagues published an article in the journal Science showing the fertilising effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on trees. In a letter to the editor, Bert Bolin, who happened to be the first head of the IPCC, wrote: "In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behaviour of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care..." Translation by US scientist Patrick Michaels: "Scientists had better consider NOT publishing results that might undermine support for Kyoto. Signed, the Boss." We examine the Kyoto Protocol shortly. Objective science appears to be a casualty of Summary injustice. However the science to be found in the Technical Sections of IPCC reports is largely sound, and unlike the Summary for Policymakers there is less of an attempt to brush over shortcomings.
 
Boundaries between science and religion are blurred in some treatments of climate change. The IPCC's former chief scientist Sir John Houghton wrote in 1996 that climate change is a "moral issue." He said that he agreed with the World Council of Churches, "which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [i.e. Kyoto again], and for the public at large to accept the necessary consequences." The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Houghton says, will "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." Michaels comments: "This is the chilled environment in which the secular scientist now works. Leaders of the world's premier scientific organisations on climate change now publicly call for the suppression of research findings and invoke religion, and not science, as the basis for policy".
 
The IPCC suffered a personal casualty when a recent Chairman, Robert Watson, was ousted by a vote of 75 nations to 49. This was widely reported to be self-inflicted, the result of outspoken advocacy of the environmentalist agenda at odds with the views of thousands of independent scientists worldwide. 
 
Thus the IPCC is by no means an infallible source of wisdom on climate change, nor is it apolitical, and nor are its projections (now called storylines remember) worth paying much attention to. After all, the IPCC relies on computer models that Harvard climatologist Dr Sallie Baliunas describes as "not reliable as tools for explaining past climate or making projections for future trends".

Global Warming, Colonialism and the ICE


 
Are environmentalists the new imperialists? This question was asked by Prof Deepak Lal in his inaugural Julian Simon Lecture at the Liberty Institute in Delhi, where he made a spirited attack on the new cultural imperialism of international Greens and their local networks. Professor Lal believes that the Green movement is a secular religion filling the void created in the West by the retreat of faith in traditional religions. Its aim, he says, is to create a new 'white man's burden' and impose its values on the world. The former religious crusades for saving souls has given way to new green crusades for (supposedly) saving the planet. The professor added that in his view this new imperialism needs to be resisted — its claim is to save the environment, but its practical effect in many instances will be ruinous for poor countries. The attitude of environmentalists these days is suggestive of the comment by H L Mencken that the desire to save mankind is almost always a false front for the desire to rule it.
 
Former US presidential candidate and green luminary Al Gore, who as a member of the U.S. Senate participated in the 1992 UN-sponsored Earth Summit, is a highly visible exponent of what appears to be an environmental cult built around the concept of reverence for planet Earth. Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship. He also seeks the obliteration of the internal combustion engine (ICE), a curious quest and one which has no justification whatsoever.
 
Climate change clearly has its disciples for whom objective scientific evidence is a mere inconvenience to be ignored. In this new world order, those who prefer science and evidence are to be demonised and marginalised by any means possible. Mobility and industry, energy consumers both, are to be taxed off the face of the planet, or at least until the pips squeak. One tool for attempting to do this is the aforementioned Kyoto agreement.
 
-
Top

Kyoto


 
The Kyoto Accord seeks to reduce supposedly harmful carbon dioxide emissions, reducing output to below 1990 levels by 2010. As a result, if implemented, the necessary reduction of emissions would cost industrialised nations between 3.5% and 5% percent of their annual gross domestic product (GDP). To illustrate this in hard financial terms, this amounts to $350 billion per year out of a USA $7 trillion-plus economy. A report warning of these implications, by the economic and energy consultancy DRI-WEFA, outlines the damage that Kyoto will also impart to the economies of European Union (EU) nations. Compliance with the Kyoto protocol will cost Germany and Britain about 5 percent of their GDP and increase unemployment by 1.8 million and 1 million respectively. The Netherlands could lose 3.8 percent of its GDP and 240,000 jobs, Spain 5 percent and 1 million jobs. And these DRI-WEFA findings assume best-case outcomes, in which efficient and widespread carbon dioxide trading limits the burden imposed by emissions reduction policies. 
 
Furthermore, all European nations may see rising heating fuel, gasoline, diesel and electricity prices. By 2010, prices will have risen by between 10 and 20 percent. The UK currently has the highest levels of fuel duty and taxation in Europe, and the situation is likely to deteriorate. Spain has a large trucking fleet, which could be seriously harmed by a 25 percent increase in the price of diesel. Electricity prices are estimated to more than double for Germany, Britain and the Netherlands, with the expected economic consequences.
 
Yet the impact of Kyoto on climate change is, even within the disreputable climate models used to indicate warming where none exists, totally insignificant, amounting to a minuscule one-twentieth of a degree, for which industrialised nations are expected to accept a return to the middle ages. Kyoto's irrelevance has been recognised as an embarrassment, and these days it is touted by environmentalists as a 'first step'. Presumably, a first step on the pointless transition from a healthy global economy capable of tackling real environmental problems, back through the middle ages, to the stone age if at all possible.
 

 
While Kyoto would do nothing useful, the EU has set out a course of action with more serious potential consequences. The Car Free Cities (CFC) network, set up by the European Commission's DG XI directorate, proclaims the following as part of the Copenhagen Declaration: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility". So we must know our place, and stay in it. Except that one gets the distinct impression that only mobility involving the car will be targeted, and already so-called 'car free days' are a sign of things planned for us. 
 
Apart from noting that such days pass with few people aware of their existence, and little different happening on the roads, when any car driver next hears of these things remember this — our freedom to use a car is under serious threat. Car free communities have been set up already, but if they all have the same success as the one brought to the attention of the ABD, then we need have less fear. Set up in a former military base in Germany, it became very unpopular with its neighbours as the car free people kept parking their cars in nearby residential areas.
 
Our ability to point out the drawbacks and failures of schemes like these may itself be under serious threat. The EU has apparently considered adding the offence of 'seditious libel' to EU law, which could make it an offence for a citizen to say or do anything that might harm the interests of the EU. Presumably the EU self-appointed elite would decide what was and wasn't in the EU's interests. One can only speculate that the document bearing this proposal, should it ever emerge, would bear the symbol of a face with its mouth tightly gagged.
 READ MORE HERE : ABD - Climate Change Truths:

WHY HAS JULIA GILLARD AND OTHERS BEEN CHARGED FOR TREASON !

Labor seeks to turn the focus on to Julie Bishop's years as a lawyer | The Australian


Julie Bishop
LABOR says the opposition's Julie Bishop "has some questions to answer" about her own past as a lawyer, as the Coalition continues to attack Julia Gillard over the AWU scandal.
Frontbencher Brendan O'Connor today attempted to turn the tables on Ms Bishop, who has spearheaded the Coalition's campaign over the Prime Minister's connections to the Australian Workers Union during her time as an industrial relations lawyer in the 1990s.
He said the deputy Liberal leader should come clean about her own past as a lawyer, particularly when she acted for building products company CSR Ltd as it fought claims by former workers exposed to deadly asbestos fibres from its mine at Wittenoom, in Western Australia.
“Clearly there have been some matters arising out of her role as a lawyer at CSR where she used, allegedly, procedural tactics to deny victims of asbestosis their day in court,” Mr O'Connor told the ABC TV's Insiders program.

Labor seeks to turn the focus on to Julie Bishop's years as a lawyer | The Australian:

'via Blog this'

Thursday, September 6, 2012

       THE STATE OF OUR BELOVED

                       COUNTRY!

The country was in a terrible state,As the Parliament sat for the Budget Debate. 
It was quite a few minutes before Gillard spoke,Then she said, 
‘Sex will cost you two bucks a poke.Whether you're short or skinny or thick.A tax will be paid on the use of your prick’.

Penny Wong rose and said, ‘Julia look here, What about dildos and those who are queer?

Gr...eenie 
, Bob Brown looked rather glum, 'May I be exempt, I only like bum...
’
Julia replied and sounded quite airy,'You will pay double, you dirty old fairy’ 

Up rose the Mad Monk, to tremendous applause,
Grabbed Julie Bishop and ripped off her drawers.......He mounted upon her and screwed her at will,Then shouted to Gillard, ‘Put that on the Bill!'
 
Wayne Swan now shouted, ‘I think I’ll resign,I haven’t had sex for a very long time. I dream every night of a big hairy crotch,But two bucks a go? ...that’s too bloody much.

’ The House was in uproar, the fighting went on,Then Turnbull came out with his little dong,‘With a tax on a poke in the front and the back All we can do is have a good whack.’

'I disagree,' said Joyce with a leer,And stuck his big prick into Bob Katter’s ear. 

The backbenchers came and the Cabinet went, Rudd took his out and found it was bent.‘Look here,' he cried as it swung in the air,‘For those who are bent a discount is fair.

’So all checked their dicks, Peter Slipper was last,And in the excitement, the damned Bill was passed! 

So now, in the beds of Australia at night, There’s many a fanny that’s closed up real tight.

 They’re taxing our booze and taxing our smokes,And now the bastards are taxing our pokes.

 If two bucks a head is the price we must pay, It's now with ourselves we find we must play. 

To ease our frustrations we must have a wank;
for the state of our Country...

we’ve Gillard to thank !


Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Sign the petition-Legally Challenge the Carbon Tax Australia

Legally Challenge the Carbon Tax Australia
Published by rachel davies on Apr 10, 2012
Target: Premiers and Attorneys-General of the States with the best legal standing for a potential challenge
Region: Australia
Background (Preamble):
‘The carbon tax is unconstitutional according to a legal opinion from expert, Bryan Pape, commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs and reported in the Australian Financial Review this morning', said Tim Wilson, Climate Change Policy Director.

‘Mr Pape is one of Australia's most respected administrative lawyers and led a 2009 case that nearly over-turned the Rudd government's stimulus package in the High Court'.

‘The legal opinion concludes that the legislation can be challenged on a number of grounds, including:

1. The Commonwealth cannot tax State property. Legally carbon dioxide emissions are State property.

2. The Commonwealth cannot impose a carbon tax and other related penalties within the same Act.

3. The Commonwealth cannot introduce a carbon tax within its external affairs powers.

‘The IPA commissioned a legal opinion because State governments have sat on their hands and let the Gillard government introduce a tax that they could potentially stop'.

‘There's still a chance State governments could make Julia Gillard an honest politician by stopping a carbon tax under a government she leads'.

‘Only the High Court can decide the Constitutionality of the carbon tax, but there are clear grounds to challenge it according to one of Australia's top administrative law minds'.

‘Pending a possible legal challenge to the tax the full legal opinion is not being released. A copy is being provided to the Premiers and Attorneys-General of the States with the best legal standing for a potential challenge - New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia'.
Petition:
We, the people of Australia demand our constitutional rights be upheld. As our elected representatives we call upon you to legally challenge the Carbon Tax. This was not mandated by the people and is unconstitutional.


The Legally Challenge the Carbon Tax Australia petition to Premiers and Attorneys-General of the States with the best legal standing for a potential challenge was written by rachel davies and is in the category Politics at GoPetition. Contact author here.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

"What is truly evil is that Al Gore and his scientific prostitutes take advantage of people’s ignorance." -JD Carson

These sites and articles completely knock the wind out of the enviro's big green sails. Here you will find thousands of scientists declare that human-caused global warming & climate change is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever, and you will learn that the hypothesis claiming that our CO2 additions can affect climate in any way has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists, population reduction advocates, environmental extremists, and large corporations and politicians cashing in on the myth. In addition to these links, click the image on the right to see the latest NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered.

>
OVER 31,000 SCIENTISTS REFUTE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS PETITION

> OVER 4,000 SCIENTISTS REFUTE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS PETITION

> OVER 1,100 CLIMATE EXPERTS REFUTE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS DECLARATION

> OVER 650 SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY DISSENT AGAINST AL GORE AND IPCC POLICIES

> 500 SCIENTISTS REFUTE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING AT THIS INSTITUTE

> 170 SCIENTISTS, ECONOMISTS, AND THEOLOGIANS SIGN AN OPEN LETTER REFUTING MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE

> 115 SCIENTISTS CORRECT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DECLARE MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE A MYTH

> 100 SCIENTISTS SIGN AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED NATIONS REFUTING MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING

> 60 SCIENTISTS CALL ON PRIME MINISTER HARPER TO REVISIT SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING

> 47 ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTISTS REFUTE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING ON THIS STATEMENT

> 41 SCIENTISTS DEBUNK MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING ALERT

Do the math. That's tens of thousands of worldwide scientists finally speaking out, and more every single day. Al Gore has a whole whopping 26 to 52 UN "scientists" drafting the media reports for their climate change hoax. Those are the only reports you hear on the news, and many of the IPCC scientists don't agree at all with the UN reports. Some have even resigned over this. And now thanks to the Climategate Scandal, we know many of those UN scientists have been cooking the data.

OPEN LETTER TO ENVIRONMENTALISTS FROM WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER

CONGRESS TOLD THAT INCREASING CO2 WILL BE GOOD FOR ALL MANKIND
MORE SCIENTIFIC PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS...EDUCATE YOURSELF!

THE SCIENCE PROVES IT: CO2 HAS NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ON CLIMATE BUT PLENTY OF BENEFITS FOR EARTH!

STOP BIO-FUEL MADNESS and the WINDFARM FOLLY

WHY THE SCAM? HOW ABOUT TRILLIONS IN REVENUE? HELLO CARBON TAXES!

"This is not an issue of science but a moral issue of self serving
individuals imposing their ideology on the world under the guise of environmentalism and this has caused nothing but hardship for the entire world." -Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geophys.

IT'S THE SUN, STUPID and GREENHOUSE THEORY DISPROVED

SCAM ROUNDUP:
GLOBAL SCAM - POLAR BEAR SCAM - MODELS SCAMglobal warming hysteria
KYOTO SCAM - GLOBAL NONSENSE
- MOVIE SCAM
GREEN SCAM - ANTARCTICA SCAM - P.I.K. SCAM
HURRICANE SCAM
global warming hysteria
WHAT ABOUT OUR SUN? and PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS GRAPH
and THESE FACTSglobal warming hysteria
- A CITIZEN’s PLEA
-
JUST COOL IT !
- STOP BLAMING CO2


AL GORE EXPOSED:
AL GORE: ALL GORE, ALL FAKE!

AL GORE STILL REFUSES TO DEBATE


Joseph Bast of www.globalwarmingheartland.org: On November 12, former vice president Al Gore announced he is joining a venture capital firm that seeks to cash in on global warming alarmism. Gore already has used global warming to become a very wealthy man, charging $200,000 and more to give speeches on global warming and steering investments to a firm he partly owns that sells worthless "carbon credits." MORE . . .
The Global Warming Myth Prof. Bellamy on why the Al Gore scenario is a scam - MUST READ
HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS MANIPULATE THE MASSES: Last March, global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth." MORE . . .
SHAME on GORE and A MOST PRESSING DISASTER - WHO WILL LISTEN?global warming hysteria

Mr Gore: Apology Accepted
and FYI, World is getting colder and Sunspots, not fossil fuels, agents of climate change, duh.

The UN agenda - World Domination: Globio and MDG Monitor and Agenda 21 - read and SHUDDER!

If you are still in any doubt about the totalitarian attitude of the UN's IPCC read this . . . AND WAKE UP!!

CARBON CAPTURE STUPIDITY and NO EVIDENCE FOR CO2 WARMING

109-page Submission to the NI Climate Change Committee:
www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission


CLICK FOR TEN GLOBAL WARMING TRUTHS


Click for over 400 more excellent myth-busting links


EXCELLENT EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT THESE LINKS.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

TOP 15 CLIMATE MYTHS - COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.


FACT: 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. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favourite enviro groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Looking at it from the long term, the planet has been gradually recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. Our temps are in fact right where they should be. From a short term perspective, satellite measurements (which are far more accurate than land-based stations) are now showing a gradual decrease in global temperatures, and it is currently well accepted that temperatures have been slowly falling for over a decade now and cold records are being set far more often than warm records.

In summary, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded from either method whatsoever.


MYTH 2: It's never been warmer in the past.


FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. ALSO, data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime. Nothing is happening "faster than normal" with today's weather/climate change/temperature variations, etc.

MYTH 3: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.


FACT: The hockey stick graph seen in An Inconvenient Truth and elsewhere has been completely debunked and proven fraudulent. It has airbrushed out the significant changes in climate which have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. And now the temperatures are dropping once again, in fact they've been dropping since 1998.

The "hockey stick", a former poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and is proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It has now been quietly removed from the IPCC reports and thoroughly discredited throughout the scientific world and is well regarded as one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of our time, yet you can still find it being used today by organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. The chart is a computer construct and a very faulty one at that. But what else would you expect, seeing as it was created only to help perpetrate the climate change lie.

Speaking of computer generated scams, let's not forget the drowning polar bears in Gore's movie and the fraudulent claim that the bears are disappearing. In fact they are actually thriving. Polar bear populations are 500% larger than they were 50 years ago. Shame on you, Al Gore, for playing on people's emotions to drive support for your enormous $45 trillion carbon tax hoax.

MYTH 4: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.


FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.

Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 5: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.


FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small.

But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

In summary, water vapour is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

What's next? A steam tax when you boil a kettle for your cup of tea?

MYTH 6: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.


FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, when in fact CO2 does not drive climate, and they do not take into account the Sun, which has the most significant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. Again, models are in essence: GARBAGE IN = GARBAGE OUT. (Maybe they should also take note that when the Earth warms, so do other planets in our solar system. Now please explain how CO2 can cause that?!)

MYTH 7: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.


FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”


Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ’spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings. The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments (to create urgency) — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians and many of them strongly disagree. This is not science. It's political propaganda.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.

MYTH 8: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.


FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. In the US, president Obama is also trying to classify CO2 as a "pollutant" for the same political reasons. It's really quite terrifying and is a slap in the face to science.

MYTH 9: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!


FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

MYTH 10: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.


FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur, and always do. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. Weather records clearly show there has been a decrease in violent and extreme weather over the past century.

Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections. The recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045. Furthermore, the hottest and coldest days on record occurred more than 60 years ago (before industry) and the wackiest most extreme weather recorded over the last 100 years, including the strongest hurricanes, and devastating droughts/floods, all occurred in the 1940's. And guess what? They will always happen, every year, with new records set daily. Normal.

Contrary to media hysteria claiming increasing storm severities, scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Also, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that when global warming does happen from time to time, more warmth generally leads to a more stable climate with less weather extremes. Once again, the greenies got it backwards.

MYTH 11: Carbon taxes, petrol duty, and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.


FACT: As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials. None.

MYTH 12: Global warming must be real since governments are trying to cover it up and I see protests all the time!

FACT: It's exactly the opposite. Governments everywhere are not only active supporters of the climate change lie, they are promoters of it and massively fund it. And they've done an absolutely brilliant job of it by easily convincing the world's alarmists and Earth-conscientious citizens of an impending catastrophe, thereby utilizing the protesters and subsequent immense political pressure to push through the very policies they aspire to implement on all of us. Governments have learned the power of activism ever since the days of the revolution, and they've managed to use it to their advantage. Extremist environmentalists have been duped into becoming a tool for the very governments they believe they're "fighting" against. A recent example of this was the declaration by Al Gore and James Hansen which encouraged activists to consider civil disobedience to stop the construction of new coal power plants.

In defense of many environmentalists and "cause-jumpers", quite often they simply do not know any better but are actually well intentioned.

MYTH 13: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.


FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing to worry about.

Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.

MYTH 14: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.



FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

MYTH 15: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax.

THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures.

Did you know...
Although the biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans, the world's natural wetlands also produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined. Furthermore, Animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankinds insignificantly tiny emissions.
To summarize what we have learned so far:
  • Climate changes are not driven by CO2.
  • Air pollution has nothing to do with CO2.
  • Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.
  • 96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.
  • The small amount of CO2 produced by humans is wholly beneficial to the planet.
  • Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.
  • CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.
  • Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.
  • Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
  • Global warming and cooling is a purely natural phenomenon.
  • The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.
  • Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2.
  • Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.
  • The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.
  • Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.
  • Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all life.
  • Many scientists believe we are on the cuss of the next little ice age.
  • When the planet warms and cools it is due to the sun. Not your car.
  • Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.
  • Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than anything in modern times.
  • There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact opposite.
So don't panic. You're NOT at fault!

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.


Former President Clinton, Al Gore, Obama and others have often cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10 percent of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. We also now know that many of the few actual scientists on that panel are not asked whether they agree with the UN's asessments, and many of them vehemently disagree and have thus asked to have their names removed from that fraudulent list. Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain --- Malcom Wallop

"When a bureaucracy's reason for existence is threatened, it typically generates new missions." Desperately Seeking Mission: Why the State Department's Gone Green --- Peter VanDoren
With the release of Al Gore's propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth and with the help of the media the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. The movie has been completely debunked and the junk science used by extremists is exactly that: junk.

You will learn that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 is a cause of temperature increases. It is, in fact, an after effect of temperature increases. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, politicians who support such absurd notions are a fraud, there is no "consensus" on global warming, the Earth has been far warmer in the past than it is today, polar bears are not endangered or dying, they are thriving, droughts and hurricanes are not caused or made worse by global warming, extreme weather events are decreasing, and there is extensive evidence of the factual natural causes of global warming when it really happens from time to time, pointing squarely at increased solar activity and orbital variations.

Those who claim that skeptics are in bed with the oil companies or receive funding from questionable sources need to give their heads a shake and look at the facts. Funding and grants to PROMOTE the climate change myth are astronomical, while money for the skeptics is pocket change:

Debunkers of the global warming theory have received approx = $21M (Million).
Supporters of the global warming theory have received approx = $79B (BILLION!)

Many people want a piece of that $79 billion pie, and the figure will only get higher so long as these groups can continue to convince the populous that the end is near unless we all start paying to emit that evil CO2! Don't you find it odd that nearly nobody ever accuses the giant Enviro groups of being in bed with the large Green Industry? Or that Al Gore has boatloads of his own cash on the line in these companies? Every environmental, political, and research group knows full well that in order to receive funding and grants they need to create urgency and panic. Money then flows in like a river, regardless of actual science. It's a sad fact.


It is better to trust scientists than politicans. Do not let fear ruin your day. Learn the Facts.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

~The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

~Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html

~Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.

~Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?

~Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!