Climate Change?
Silent Enigma

Audio Links:

May 2018 - Former professor Ian Plimer takes aim at Climate Change Science

Sept 2017 - Australia's dangerous journey down the path of renewables

June 2019 Alan Jones interview with Nils-Axel Morner, a former head of the Paleo-Geophysics and Geodynamics  Department in Stockholm, says a new solar-driven cooling period for the Earth is not far off:

2019 Sun-driven cooling period and Co2 sea level rise truth

 

CLIMATE CHANGE , EU and the truth Brian Wilshire 2gb radio host interview with Lord Christopher Monckton.

 

  • It is a known fact that temperature rise precedes carbon dioxide rise -  not the other way round as many climate change proponents have incorrectly stated.
  • The  highly credible and accurate record of the climate going back 420,000 years was made at Vostok station in the Antarctic by Russian and French researchers - known as The Vostok ice core samples. These samples were taken by drilling down to a depth of 3623m and when graphed the data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. The Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures.
  • Climate change/global warming has been occurring for millions of years.
  • The climate is a complex ever changing phenomenon. There are cycles we know about and cycles which we don’t fully understand yet.
  • The earth has warmed, cooled and CO2 levels has have risen and fallen continuously for eons well before industrialization.
  • Mans extremely short industrialized existence on this earth is trivial and insignificant in the great scheme of things.
  • CO2 is not a pollutant, temperature and CO2 rises are very good for the planet. Life and plants flourish in warmer climates.
  • The sun and the moon play a very significant role for our climate. Our climate is controlled by the sun, moon and the angle and proximity at which the earth rotates around the sun.
  • Many of us have forgotten the carbon cycle you were taught at school. Read up on it on the internet as a refresher.
  • Carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. 3% of that 0.04% is created by human beings, so the proportion of CO2 that human beings are responsible for of all the gases in the atmosphere is 0.001%.
  • 97% CO2 occurs from nature,  3% CO2 from human beings
  • Computer models cannot predict the climate. A computer model is just a computer program which accepts variables of data to produce some output of which is interpreted how ever you like. If you don’t like the output then change the input and modify some code to make sure you get what you like. No computer model(ie. computer program) in the world can predict the future or the future climate.
  • A little research and common sense goes a long way.
  • Scientist James Lovelock admits he was wrong:

One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

 

Australia’s Heat waves are nothing new going back as far 1790 and 1896

Australias heat wave 1790

Australias heat wave 1896

 

 

Dec 2019 - Can the Northern Territory cope with a transition to 50 per cent renewables?

Link to article: Cloud cover causes major solar power outages in Alice Springs NT Australia

 

2gb Radio Alan Jones interviews Malcolm Roberts on climate change.
22-6-2016


Alan Jones:  Malcolm Roberts has been invited by Pauline Hansen to be her running mate on her Queensland Senate ticket. This bloke is a candidate who is not a dope.
I regard this bloke as knowing most.. probably more on climate change than almost anyone I have spoken to with the exception of Lord Monckton.

Malcolm Roberts has written an affordable energy and climate change policy for Pauline Hansen's One Nation Party.
This is a big issue in my opinion -  this climate change stuff because one simply reason, the hoax is costing you - all of us, a lot of money.

Cost of living is everything. Common sense will tell you if the Labor Party are allowed and the Liberal Party are not much different to ensure renewable energy is 50% of our energy usage - than you can forget it. You won't have to turn out the light because you won't be able to afford to turn them on.

Malcolm Roberts is a family man, simple bloke, but has got a background in engineering, mining, business and economics, masters degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business which is one of the worlds most respected Universities for finance and economics.

He has investigated global warming upside down and inside out and climate change - His analysed the data, He has written papers, submitted papers to government, to Ministers , to climate change acadamic apologists.

Almost all the papers unacknowledged.

He has written about the corruption of the science. His expressed in writing to me many times his disappointment with both major political parties refusing to listen.

He talks about foreign interests wrecking our country and again no one wants to know about it - but he just loves his country and his a family man, and he has stood up often against vile criticism which we've all copped simply because we refuse to yield to the global warming hoax.

His joined me in the studio. Malcolm Roberts - Good morning.

Malcolm Roberts: Good morning Alan..

Alan Jones:  Senate candidate and acadamic - you just oppose all tax on carbon dioxide for one simple reason - it's not affecting the climate.

Malcolm Roberts: Correct and it can't.

The empirical evidence, the hard measured data Alan shows that carbon dioxide is determined completely by nature and we can’t do anything about it.

Alan Jones:  Correct.

As a Senate candidate you would cancel all agreements obliging Australia to make payments to the united nations and foreign institutions.

Malcolm Roberts: Yes and we would rebuild trust by bringing the government of our country back in the hands of our people and constitution.

Alan Jones:  You want low cost power generation because that's been our strong competitive advantage forever.

Malcolm Roberts: Correct.

Malcolm Roberts: When I was growing up in the Hunter Valley - we had aluminium smelters come to this country because of our cheaper coal fired electricity generation- they are now shutting.
Terry McCrann said if you go down this renewable energy road - you are signing national economic suicide note.

Malcolm Roberts: Why is it we are mining coal and exporting it to other countries and they are generating electricity cheaper than we can generate it here with our own clean coal.

Alan Jones: 100%

Alan Jones:  You would want a Royal Commission into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organization has misled the nation on climate and energy policy.

Malcolm Roberts: Correct.

Malcolm Roberts: Let's face it, we know that this is a scam Alan - you've said this many times and I want to applaud you for the courage you've shown in standing up repeatadly year in, year out to this nonsence.

Alan Jones:  You want to advocate the setting up of an independent science body to replace the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change to report on climate science beyond politization.

Malcolm Roberts: Correct.

Malcolm Roberts: We've got to have science that is objective, that’s what's given us our way of life.

Alan Jones: That's what's science is about.

Malcolm Roberts: Exactly the hard data decides science.

Alan Jones: You've written to and challenged all of these people : Professor Flannery , Karoly, Steffen and Garnaut.
They don't respond to your detailed and qualified analysis of Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO assertions.

Malcolm Roberts: Most of them have responded but none of them have provided any evidence proving human cause - none at all.

And what’s more the freedom of information request I put on the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO show conclusively that no member of parliament has received any such evidence of human cause ever - full stop.

And yet Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull pushed through, soon as they got rid of Abbott, they pushed through a carbon dioxide emission trading scheme which is what Tony Abbott and the Liberal party correctly said is a carbon dioxide tax and that comes into force on July 1 - the day before the election.

Then we are up for foreign control of our energy.

Alan Jones: You've been critical of prominent Universities taking money simply because they can make alarmist claims about climate that they can't substantiate but fits what government wants to here.

Malcolm Roberts: Exactly that’s the reason for them pushing this stuff.

The University of Queensland Vice-chancellor is a foreigner and is on over a million dollar salary. When he answers me, he cannot provide any empirical evidence, any hard data proving cause - he just dodges the question every time.

Alan Jones:  You've analysed all the evidence - and you've come to the conclusion which is the exact opposite of the United Nations political claims that temperatures of the last 18 years are basically normal. Changes in
Carbon dioxide levels are not a cause of changes in temperature - they are the result of changes.
The human production of carbon dioxide cannot and does not affect it's level in the air - your not making it up.
You've analysed the data and the evidence.

Malcolm Roberts: Exactly that's what science has decided by exactly as you've said.. the hard evidence.. Alan.
The evidence shows we are not causing it, the evidence shows that the UN's claims, the CSIRO claims, Greg Hunt's claims, Malcolm Turnbull's claims, Bill Shorten's claims contradict the empirical evidence.
And the key link driving the whole thing is government funded money - the people who are pushing this are all funded by government.

Alan Jones:: None of them  will get in the ring and debate this with you.
The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are miniscule.

Malcolm Roberts: We'll that does not really matter - we cannot affect..

Alan Jones:  Even if they were right that carbon dioxide is the problem, the human levels are miniscule.

Malcolm Roberts: Correct.

But what is even more important is the data, the hard data , the observed data shows that we cannot affect the level of carbon dioxide in any way at all.

Alan Jones: And Tony Abbott got rid of the Gillard government's carbon dioxide tax and your saying now this is going to come into being under another guise on July 1.

Malcolm Roberts: Yes - Greg Hunt started the month after Tony Abbott was given the flick and he pushed it through the Senate with the help.. Liberals had the help of the greens and the ALP to push it through the Senate on Dec 2nd and comes into force the day before our election.

Alan Jones: When do you think the public will make up?

Only yesterday we saw a survey by the Lowy Institute that 90% of Australian were opposed to foreign ownership of prime agricultural assets, they are waking up - at long last.
When will people wake up to the global warming hoax?

Malcolm Roberts: I think they are starting to wake up already Alan.
The key thing is they recognize the issue here is trust.
Pauline Hanson has had 20 years of showing her honesty, her courage and persistence. She doesn't give up. We are the same right through our party just as Pauline. She will be the one that can bring back trust and that's why we need her and as many One Nations candidates on the floor of parliament to hold these people accountable. That's how we can rebuild our trust.

 

 

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade  global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday  when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto  the world's wealth by climate policy."

 Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

 (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

 (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money  will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development  policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal  responsibly with so much money at all.

 (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

 (EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why?  Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the  soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the  atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target.        11,000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

 (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with  natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that  which has been triggered by development policy.

 (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say  clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate  policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic  about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do  with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase  in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

 As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate  have been saying for years - that this is actually an international  economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

 

 

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD - April 2009

by Paul Sheehan

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I and you capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see. The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book’s 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years’ research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes:

"An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geo-chemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaci-ology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia's most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone." Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations’ peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia’s water debate — but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. "lt is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times . .. and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age." lf we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years.

The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book’s 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions: Is dangerous warming occurring? No. Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No. The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth’s climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy. "To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable — human-induced CO —is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life. The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. lt has no mathematical or evidential basis. Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists."

Ian Plimer is not some isolated gad-fly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.

Heaven and Earth is an evidence based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder ` to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005).

He has won many international awards for science and has twice won the Eureka Prize. He is the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science, published by Connor Court Publishing.

 

13 August 2009 - Professor Ian Plimer

Today the Australian Senate voted on the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Even the name of this bill should have rung  warning bells as carbon is the foundation of life and is not a pollutant.

It is claimed that there is a scientific consensus about human-induced climate change. There is no consensus and consensus is a process of politics not science. Science is married to evidence no matter how uncomfortable.

To argue that temperature has increased  0.8şC since 1850 is misleading because the Little Ice Age ended in 1850  and it is absolutely no surprise that temperature increases after a long cold period. Since 1850, there has been temperature increase  (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1976-1998) and decrease (1880-1910, 1940-1976,1998-present) and the rate of the three periods of temperature increase has been the same.

A simple question does not get asked: what part of warming and cooling since 1850 is natural?

The first two warmings could not be related to human additions of CO2 from industry hence why wouldn't the 1976-1998 warming also be due to natural processes?

It is claimed that, since 1950, human additions of CO2 has been the dominant cause of warming. The scales and rates of  temperature change in the past have been far greater than when humans emitted CO2 from industry. What has caused the coolings (1940-1976 and 1998-present) or, by some tortured logic, is global cooling this century actually global warming cunningly disguised?

At present,  atmospheric temperature is decreasing and CO2 is increasing again showing that CO2 is not the principal driver of climate change. Planet  Earth is a warm wet greenhouse volcanic planet. The planet is dynamic,  change is normal.

Five of the six major ice ages occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was up to 1,000 times higher than at present and for half of Earth history CO2 has been sequestered naturally into algal reefs, coral reefs, sediments, altered rocks, bacteria, plants,  soils and oceans. This process is still taking place.

The  hypothesis that high atmospheric CO2 drives global warming is therefore invalid. The Earth's atmospheric CO2 initially derived from volcanic  degassing. Much of it still does and the rest is recycled CO2 from the  oceans, rocks and life.

The claim that warming will increase in  the future has been disproved by the climate modelers' own data.  Climate models of the 1990s did not predict the El Nino of 1998 or the  cooling in the 21st Century.

If such models are inaccurate only 10 years into the future, how can they be accurate for longer term predictions? Furthermore, when these models are run backwards they cannot be used to identify climate-driving processes involving a huge  transfer of energy (eg El Nino), volcanoes, solar changes and  supernovae.

Models tell us more about the climatologists than they do about Nature.

Another claim is that climate cannot be reversed. This invokes a non-dynamic planet. The fact that previous warmings with an atmospheric temperature some five degrees Celcius higher than now (eg Minoan, Roman, Medieval) were reversed is conveniently ignored as are the great climate cycles driven by the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tectonics and tides seen on  modern, archaeological and geological time scales.

'Tipping points are another sensationalist unsubstantiated claim. In past times when atmospheric CO2 and temperature were far higher, there were no tipping points, climate disasters or runaway greenhouse. The climate catastrophists attempt to create fear by mentioning the carbon cycle but just happen to omit that significant oxygenation of the atmosphere took place when the planet was in middle age and this process of  photosynthesis resulted the recycling and sequestration of carbon.

The atmosphere now contains 800 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon as CO2, soils vegetation and humus contain 2,000 Gt carbon in various compounds, the  oceans contain 39,000 Gt and limestone, a rock that contains 44 per cent CO2, contains 65,000,000 Gt carbon.

The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.

Climate  chestnuts about polar ice are commonly raised. What is not raised is  that ice is dynamic, it advances and retreats, while the Arctic is warming the Antarctic is cooling and vice versa and if ice did not retreat, then the planet would be covered in ice.

For less than 20 per cent of time Earth has had ice. The Antarctic ice sheet has been  with us for 37 million years during which time there were extended periods of warmth and the ice sheet did not disappear.

So too with the Greenland ice sheet which has enjoyed nearly three million years of expansion and contraction yet did not disappear in extended times far  warmer than at present.

Sea level is also dynamic and has risen  and fallen over time by at least 600 metres. Since the end of the glaciation 14,000 years ago, sea level has risen some 130 metres at  almost one centimetre per year. It is now at about one milimetre per  year.

This sea level rise has flooded Bass Strait, the English Channel and destabilised the west Antarctic Ice Sheet. It is this sea  level rise that has stimulated coral growth, created larger shallow  water ecologies and changed the shape of landmasses.

The fear mongering suggestion that oceans will become acid is also misleading.  The oceans are buffered by sediments and volcanic rocks on the sea floor and even in past times when atmospheric temperature and CO2 were far higher than at present, there were no acid oceans. If there had been, there would be no fossils with calcium carbonate shells.

Although industrial aerosols are decreasing, the climate catastrophists omit to state that volcanic aerosols kill.

At least three of the five major mass extinctions of complex life on Earth were probably due to aerosols.

If our climate catastrophists want to twiddle the dials and stop climate change, they need to play God and change radiation in the galaxy, the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tidal cycles and plate tectonics. Once they have mastered volcanoes, then we can let them loose on climate change.

Today Australia faced the biggest financial decision since Federation. There still has not been an independent scientific and financial due diligence on an emissions trading scheme.

It is this legislative time bomb that will destroy productive industries in rural and industrial Australia.

 

Novermber 12 , 2009 The Sydney Morning Herald
by Miranda Devine
 
Against the apocalyptic rhetoric pushed by Rudd comes a cool-minded new book which unpicks the science underpinning the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Changes reports. Global Warming,

False Alarm by Ralph Alexander, an Australian-born US scientist with a PhD in physics from Oxford, is subtitled “The bad science behind the United Nations' assertion that man-made CO2 causes global warming". Alexander wrote the book, "because I ’m a scientist. Because I’m offended

that science has been perverted in the name of global warming." He became a sceptic when he taught a course on physical science and found the textbook presented the "alarmist line on man-made global warming without question". “To me that made a mockery of the history of science presented in the course, which featured several examples of how mainstream scientific thinking has been wrong in the past." The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change says the earth has effectively developed an allergy to CO2. The effect of a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is amplified by water vapour and clouds — in a positive feedback loop which enhances the climate’s sensitivity to extra CO2 and causes “runaway global warming". That is the big Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hypothesis. Alexander explains the three problems with the hypothesis.

First, recent satellite observations show cloud feedback to be a negative loop, that is, clouds reduce global warming, rather than amplify it in a positive feed back loop, as the panel's models predict. Second, the panel has used flawed data. It "stooped to trickery and rewrote history" to make the temperature and CO2 records correlate over the past 2000 years, creating the notorious “hockey stick" graph that wiped out the well documented Medieval Warming Period (a warm spell about the year 1000) and Little ice Age (cool period in about 1650). The graph relied on data from a few tree rings to estimate historic temperatures, which have since been shown to be inaccurate. The third problem for the panel hypothesis is that CO2 lags behind temperature in the Ice Age era, which has been explained by the delayed release of stored CO2 from oceans, but the panel model has CO2 and temperature rising together since 1850. “Either temperature and CO2 go up and down at the same time or they don’t . . . You can't have it one way during the ice ages and another way today. "

Alexander says data manipulation has been the panels main tool of deception. For instance, it has ignored the bias in the modern temperature record caused by the "urban heat island effect" that inflates warming near cities. The panel has also ignored the bias in its temperature data caused by the shutting down of weather stations in cold parts of the world in the 1990s — from about 5000 to 2000 or so — most notably in the former Soviet Union. Again, this artificially increases the recent warming rate. Alexander says the panel has "cherry-picked" 19th century CO2 data to exaggerate the rise in CO2 levels since pre-industrial times, and has trivialised the sun’s contribution to the present warming trend.

Don't get him started on computer climate models which he says are "full of unfounded assumptions". He points to the drop in the earth’s temperature since 2001 which wasn’t predicted by the models. Ultimately, "trillions of dollars could be wasted to fix a problem that doesn’t exist". Alexander’s book is a useful tool to make sense of climate change As they did in the republic debate, regardless of elite consensus, Australians make up their own minds, and are probably turned off by official attempts to stifle dissent.

 

 

15 December 2009

by Professor Ian Plimer

Two Copenhagen climate conferences took place last week. The UN  Copenhagen conference was attended by politicians, 16,500 bureaucrats, thousands of journalists, activists and NGOs. Hundreds of limos, over  100 private jets and huge amounts of energy were expended by more than 30,000 attendees. Many of the attendees were scientific agitators with a political agenda.

Australia's prime minister had a Copenhagen  photo opportunity whistle stop in his dedicated jet and expended more  fuel on this trip than the Arkaroola Wilderness Resort does in a year.  Your taxes payed for 114 Australian bureaucrats to attend this junket yet some 71 UK delegates attended.

The UK Taxpayers' Alliance calculated the conference cost as much as the GDP of Malawi. If such funds were used to provide electricity and drinking water to Malawian  families, then land clearing, wood and dung burning and disease would  decrease. Now, that would have been true environmentalism!

The  carbon footprint of these moralising folk, most of whom are self-appointed, is astronomical. Never fear, their great sacrifices are saving the planet. Saving us from wanton energy expenditure,hypocrisy, blackmail and irrationality at Copenhagen would be a good start.

I attended the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference. It was about the science of climate. Speakers were scientists, lawyers and  environmentalists.

World sea level expert Professor Nils-Axel Mörner presented data from his 40 years of research on island states. In the Maldives, sea level rose 50cm in the 17th Century, dropped below  the present level in the 18th Century, rose 20cm between 1790 and 1970,  dropped 20cm in the 1970s and has been stable for the past 30 years.

I showed that there have been six major ice ages in the history of time  and each commenced when carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Why was it cold and not warm in past times of high carbon dioxide? Professor Cliff Ollier, from the University of Western Australia, showed that glaciers flow uphill and wax and wane. Adjacent glaciers in Alaska advance and retreat showing that ice sheet changes are complex.  Furthermore, the evaporation of steam from ice at African and South American glaciers has resulted in the retreat of glaciers yet  temperatures are less than zero. Again, retreat and advance of ice is very complicated and, in some places, may be related to changing land  use. Other papers dealt with the Sun, cosmic rays and energy.

The  challenge from the Copenhagen scientific conference is: Prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive modern climate change. This has never been done. And while you are about it, please explain why there was a 600 year Roman Warming and a 400 year Medieval Warming at times of no major industry and when temperature was much higher than the most  sensationalist IPCC future temperature speculations.

Why do records from 89 per cent of the US climate monitoring stations not even  meet the US reporting requirements? And why has the keeper of the  records, the UN's IPCC scientists at the University of East Anglia, just happened to have "lost" records, amended data, created data ex nihilo and engaged in mafia-type thuggery to avoid contrary science being  heard? It is this non-robust science that underpins the Copenhagen  climate conference charade.

The conference I attended used science to understand the past, present environments and pollution. This was  essentially unreported because journalists are scientific illiterates and this is not sensational news.

The other conference, the UN's political conference, is about the redistribution of your money through sticky fingers.

 

Monday 29 March 2010

Leo Hickman from the guardian.co.uk interviews James Lovelock.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock

James Lovelock,  is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.

During this discussion, Lovelock recalls the "corruption of science" that occurred during the attempts to link chlorofluorocarbons with the  hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s. "Fudging the data in any way  whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science.  I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do."

I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that  time were either faked, or incompetently done.

I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the  satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based  more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the  climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet.

Lovelock says the events of the past few months have seen him warm to  the efforts of some climate skeptics: "What I like about skeptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: 'Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?' If you don't have that continuously, you  really are up the creek.

But you need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.

And the skeptics are right, he says, to be deeply distrustful of scientists who are overly reliant on computer models, particularly when  it comes to predicting future climate scenarios: "We're not that bright  an animal. We stumble along very nicely and it's amazing what we do do  sometimes, but we tend to be too hubristic to notice the limitations. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world."

The great climate science centres around the world are more than well  aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're  scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models,  but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to  prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a  bit more pragmatic about all this.

We do need scepticism about  the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can  give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so  many unknowns that it's wrong to do it.

I've always said that adaptation is the most serious thing we can do.  Are our sea defences adequate? Can we prevent London from flooding? This is where we should be spending our billions. If wind turbines really  worked, I wouldn't object to them. To hell with the aesthetics, we might need them to save ourselves. But they don't work – the Germans have admitted it.

 

01 March 2011, Professor Robert Carter

2GB radio host Chris Smith speaks to Professor Robert Carter, author of 'Climate: The Counter Consensus' about the carbon tax.

It is not demonstrated that there is any measurable global warming due to human induced carbon dioxide emissions. It is true carbon dioxide is a greenhouse has, it is true we are emitting some into the atmosphere.

The western world has spent more than a 100 billion dollars since The IPCC was setup in 1988 to look for this human signal on climate change. Scientists cannot isolate and measure this human impact. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there.. The question is how much warming is being caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. Australia’s portion of these emissions is about 1% or the worlds emissions.

How much warming would be precluded if we stopped our industrial activity. The answer is 1/1000th of a degree Celsius.

The idea that Carbon dioxide which is colourless odorless tasteless gas which also comes out of power station chimneys that it is a  pollutant is an abuse of logic , abuse of language and abuse of science .

Carbon dioxide is the basis for the planetary food chain.

 

Daily Mail UK - By David Rose

29 January 2012

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest  that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings  from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia  Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world  temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists  yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a grand minimum in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call Cycle 24 which is why last week a solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are  running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by  experts at NASA and the University of Arizona derived from  magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the suns surface  suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week  by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the Dalton minimum of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the Maunder minimum (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645  and 1715 in the coldest part of the Little Ice Age when, as well as  the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Offices confident  prediction of a negligible impact difficult to understand.

The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many  scientists are not surprised.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling  warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate, said Prof  Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to  1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle flipped back from warm to  cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years.

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some  scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept,  because doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

 

FEB-13 2013 2gb radio - Andrew Bolt with Steve Price interviewing Professor Bob Carter.
regarding Barack Obamas state of the union address announcement on combatting climate change.

OBAMA : We must do more to combat climate change
       Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods all are now more frequent and intense.
       12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15


Professor Bob Carter / There is a much bigger issue here. Politicians are telling in public blatant lies and they are completely unaccountable for it. Why aren't they unaccountable? - the media are not doing their job

They are not doing their fact checking and not holding politicians to account.

..blatantly dishonest or ignorant statement take your pick.
If I was to say to you that 3 of the hottest hours yesterday came between 2 and 5 o’clock in the afternoon- you would say of course. Exactly the same reason that 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15

Climate moves in cycles and rhythms and there was a little bit of warming in the late 20th century or across the 20th century over all and that warming is part of a 1000 year long(millennial climate cycle)

As you warm towards the peek of any rhythm like that - it can be the thousand year climate cycle or the 24hr diurnal cycle - you get most of your hottest periods centered around the peek. So It can be a factually true statement that 12 hottest years have all come in the last 15 but that only is the 12 hottest years since we've have thermometers which is the last 150 years- but anyway it should be greeted with a yawn - so what is surprising about that?

Has there been any warming of statistical significance by any measure over the last 16 years?

No -Not since 1997 and indeed there has been cooling but not significant cooling since 2001.

BOLT: I understand there is a fact from the IPCC that there is no evidence of any trend of increased floods around the world - none.

CARTER: Well not just floods - any climate disaster. There is copious research - your quite right. It is being summarized by the IPCC - they(IPCC) had a report last year - where they reported they couldn't find it.

Very good work in QLD has shown that the number of cyclones on the Great barrier reef region was higher between 1600 and 1800 when I think there was about 7 extreme cyclones than between 1800 and today when there has been one. There has been more cyclones when it has been colder.''

BOLT: Over the last 30-40 years when global warming is supposed to have  existed there has been no increase in  cyclones - infact the reverse.

CARTER: Correct!

PRICE: What really upsets me about this ... These factual discussions that you and I are having tonight Bob, with Andrew the three of us - Our children are not been taught this - they're being taught the exact opposite.

CARTER: That's another huge problem...

CARTER: The Propaganda that is being taught to children - not just About climate change but environment matters generally in schools.

PRICE: And that's being going on for 20 years..

CARTER:  Let me generalize that for you - that no young Australian under the age of 35 has had an education in environmental science. They have all received propagandization and indoctrination on this issue.

 

 

2UE Radio Station - 23/9/2013 Professor Bob Carter Geologist and environmental scientist
George and Paul radio announcers interview with Professor Bob Carter


The UN latest investigations into global warming which is due out this coming week.. has found that no where near as bad as the dire predictions they had been making.
1.2 degrees in 100 years.
The issue is not is climate change happening.
The issue is not is carbon dioxide a green house gas
The key question is the magnitude of the warming.

If what they’re now saying is correct and they've downgraded it - it's 1.2 degrees in 100 years..

I would defy anyone to go outside and try and spot the difference between 1.2 degrees.

Bob Carter:
The problem that is always lacking here... is the context and is very difficult for any ordinary person or scientist for that matter to answer the question you've just asked outside of context.

What’s a degree?.. Its not very much in terms of the daily changes which we observe which are routinely 10 or sometimes as much as 20 or more degrees. They are talking about the Global average. When the global average shifts by a degree warmer or cooler that does have a greater warming or cooling effect locally - can be 2 or 3 degrees in some places and of course less than that in others.  Their talking about a global average where is our daily experience is where we live. In that context a degree is not very much.

George:
They are saying that this 1.2 in 100 years is almost like mans contribution is almost submerged within the variability of what you would expect of the natural climate change of the planet.

Bob Carter:
That right.

There's 2 separate reports which we need to tease out for your listeners.
 The first is the one they've known about for 20 years or more starting in 1990 - the UN started releasing a report by it's Intergovernmental panel on climate change or IPCC. Now for 10 years that was the only kid on the block.. But note the title Intergovernmental panel on climate change- Not international but Intergovernmental - so those reports were and remain political statements. And independent scientists started getting worried about this around the turn of the century. So about from 2003 there was a new group who got together called the NIPCC and that stands for Non governmental international panel on climate change and that panel is staffed by scientists who are completely independent of any government or other influence.

Now the IPCC is due to produce its fifth assessment report at the end of September on Sept 27th- but in the mean time yesterday in Chicago the NIPCC released its latest report... - that the advise is that the changes we are are seeing if it were 1.2 degrees per century fall well in the bounds of normal climatic variation. There is no evidence that the change is driven by human activity and anyway its magnitude is not sufficient to be worried about.

Paul:
The united nations latest investigation into climate change reportedly admits that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate it had claimed in 2007. So Are we warming realistically or is it just a hoax?

Bob Carter:
What's happened is perhaps come into into the public domain because somebody has leaked a copy of the final draft. This is not the final document which won't be release until the

27th Sept. This is the final draft which has what you've just stated. This is all over the news services as though it were news. The only news about is that the IPCC has finally conceded that point -  that point being that their climate models are inaccurate and unable to predict future temperature. Other independent scientists including the NIPCC have been telling the world this for 10 years but the media will not carry that message. So the news in all this is not that the computer models aren't any good- we've known that for 10 years. The news is that the main stream media are now reporting that view from the IPCC themselves.

The moral issue is this - that the increases in cost that have happened especially the unnecessary increases in cost of electricity hurt the poorest people in our community the most. So if you have pressure and as you know there is huge political pressure against building coal fire power stations then you deny loans from the world bank and this has actually happened to third world countries to build coal fire station then you deny those undeveloped nations the right to improve the standard of living of their people - because the basis of creating economic growth is of course cheap energy and the cheapest energy by far is coal fire power stations.

 

Monday 31 March 2014

The Guardian by Adam Vaughan

James Lovelock: Environmentalism has become a religion

Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not  pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about  rising temperatures

Environmentalism has "become a religion" and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock.

The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a  self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that "it’s just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer€ť and that  fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms.

Speaking to the Guardian for an an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts  of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: "I was a little too certain in that book. You just can’t tell what’s going to happen."

It [the impact from climate change] could be terrible within a few years, though that’s very unlikely, or it could be hundreds of years before the  climate becomes unbearable," he said.

Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: "It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer.  You can’t be certain.”

Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: "It’s become a  religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts."

The government is too frightened to use nuclear, renewables won’t work €“because we don’t have enough sun €“ and we can’t go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2, so that leaves fracking. It produces only a fraction of the amount of CO2 that coal does, and will make Britain secure in energy for quite a few years. We don’t have much choice," he said.

 

 

BBC Hardtalk show interview with Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey,  2014.

Joe hockey the treasurer has been in the UK and among other things appeared on a BBC program called hard talk where he was hammered about climate change and about this old chestnut that Australia is supposedly the worst carbon polluter per capita in the world.

BBC Presenter:
You are one one the dirtiest most greenhouse gas emitting countries in the OECD group of developed countries.
Is your government prepared to do anything to cleanup its act.

Joe Hockey:
Firstly the comment you just made is absolutely ridiculous.
Australia is a significant exporter of energy and in fact when it comes to coal  we  produce some of the cleanest coal...  -- Steven I don't accept the basis of your question and here's why:
We are a small population and a very large land mass and we are an exporter of energy, so that measurement is a false hood in a sense because is does not properly reflect exactly what our economy is.
 

 

18-10-2014 2GB Radio - Miranda Devine interviews Canadian Ecologist Doctor Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder)

Amanda Devine:
Australia is not the worst polluter in the world.
Australia contributes less than 2% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions, greenhouse gas emissions. We could close the whole joint down and it wouldn’t make no difference. So the green bully’s just change it to say that we per capita are the worst emitters which isn’t true anyway- It's just a meaningless measure in any case and is used to make us feel guilty.

Australia’s emissions versus the big emitters - USA, China , India are miniscule, so damaging our economy to reduce the effect of our emissions globally is futile. Hockey was right. But this is what the climate movement has achieved.

Doctor Patrick Moore.
You cofounded Greenpeace in 1971, but you're really an apostate - aren't you?
I suppose you could say that, I was there for 15 years fighting a good fight ,to stop nuclear war  and save the whales and prevent toxic waste from being dumped into the air and the water and onto the land. We did a lot of good things. But, By the end of that 15 years I’d been one of six international directors for six years, and my fellow directors none of whom turned out had any science education like I did - I had a PHD in Ecology which I was doing when I first joined the little group in a church basement in Vancouver to eventually become Greenpeace - and they started adopting positions that I simply could not accept from my science background - and already I had started thinking I would rather like to move on and not just be in political confrontation my whole life but perhaps try and figure out what I was in favour of and be more on the solution side of things rather than just being against things everyday. And Also I was beginning to realize that we actually do have to take into account the fact that 7 billion people wake up every morning and they need food, energy and materials and the green movement had drifted from the early stage of..  we started with the intent to stop nuclear war and so that’s quite a strong humanitarian orientation to prevent human civilization from being destroyed- and that’s the peace in green peace. But the green kind of took over the years - by the time I left humans where were being characterized as the enemies of the earth and the humanitarian aspect was gone. That is in fact why today I say Greenpeace is actually in some ways an evil force... because they don't care about people anymore. And for me the perfect example of that  is they're turning a complete blind eye to the fact that two million children are dying from Vitamin A deficiency each year. Golden rice was invented 15 years ago, it was invented through the use of genetic science because that was the only way to do it and golden rice contains the vitamin A that 250 million children who are deficit in this essential nutrient need.
Vitamin A deficiency isn't a disease like malaria and if it was a disease like malaria and some one invented a cure for it - it would be adopted immediately.
Look with Ebola for example  - if someone invents a cure for Ebola using genetic modification to do it there's not going to be anyone arguing about it, and yet the biggest killer of children in the world - 6000 a day. Ebola is serious but only 4500 people have died from it so far. 6000 children die every day from vitamin A deficiency and  diseases related to it and yet the cure for it has been held back for 15 years and Greenpeace just refuses to make an exception on humanitarian grounds for golden rice. They fight it tooth and claw and continue to do so..

- On BBC just the other day Doug Parr who is the so called scientist with Greenpeace says golden rice doesn't even exist- actually it's growing in the Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh - just they can't get it out of the field trials and out of the lab to be allowed for normal farmers to grow it. It would spread like wild fire if they would just let it out...

Miranda Devine:
Are they trying to affect social change rather than caring about the environment?

Doctor Patrick Moore:
It was more people from the peace movement I would say that drifted into Greenpeace when the cold war ended. They brought with them the anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-globalisation - its kind as if the occupy movement took over Greenpeace and that is what has happened - and when I left in 86 already all my fellow directors where either political activists, social activist or I call them environmental entrepreneurs - people looking for a career know that you could actually make a decent living being an environmentalist. When we started we were all volunteers, so I watched my organization basically being hijacked by the extreme left and by people who I would say where  more interested in the propaganda side and I saw it moving into misinformation, sensationalism and fear, where as I was a person who wanted to base my environmental policy on science and logic because environmentalism should not be cast on moral terms. It’s much more sensible to base our environmentalism on science and logic rather than emotionalism and you look at know how the fossil fuel issue is being cast- it's as if it's evil - when in fact fossil fuel isn't evil and it isn't an angel either - but from a very practical and technical point of view it is 85% of the entire worlds energy supply and you can't just kick it out without threatening the entire basis of our civilization - and yet it's being  demonized in such a way that people are thinking it's evil, awful, bad and dirty and that is not good for the future of our society for people to adopt those kinds of biases that are really not based on much of anything when it comes right down to it.
 

When people say emissions- now today they are talking about carbon dioxide. Emissions and pollution to me are soot, mercury, grime and poison going into the air.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous , it is not toxic, it is not pollution - it is the most important food for all of life on earth and plants would like there to be 3-4 times as much of it in the air as there is today.

Amanda Devine:
Doctor Moore what do you think of this idea that Australia is the biggest polluter on the planet- its ridiculous considering our emissions are less than 2% of the world emissions.

Doctor Patrick Moore:
 Well you do have a fairly high per capita emissions of fossil fuel CO2 - there is no doubt about that-  because something like  85% of all your electricity is from fossil fuels to start with. You're like everybody else with automobiles- Everybody runs their automobiles on fossil fuels no matter where you are in the world . When it comes to households you have fairly high air conditioning requirements in the summer, not as much heating as some other countries do in the winter, but overall.. you have .. Canada for example has 60% hydro-electric and 15% nuclear for 75% no emissions from its electricity base. Where and Brazil is 80% hydro-electric, Germany is 65% fossil fuels - its more or less like Australia but a very small country and that gives you a lot more efficiencies.

And you also are a major energy producing country like Canada. Canada has a high per capita CO2 emissions but then we're also only double your population - we're a very small country. So it doesn’t make much sense to blame Australia for "The Problem" which I don't really believe exists myself.

Amanda Devine:
Doctor Moore can you tell me your view on the climate hysteria that we've been engulfed in the last decade or so.

I think it’s really unfortunate - people are not looking at the history. It has become a kind of what I would call on the one hand, it’s far left ideology which is basically anti-capitalism. Naomi Klein - I don't know if you know of her recent statements that capitalism is the problem so we have to smash capitalism. There was a statement back in the day "We're out to smash capitalism and we mean business" - that was  very clever- but you know that is completely ridicules -  what does that mean, that North Korea is the only role model left in the whole planet for us to follow ?..Russia and China are capitalists for goodness sakes - so I don't get that part. On the other hand it's kind of like a fundamentalist religion, because it's all about belief - they just say the science is settled, the evidence to overwhelming! - I'm going please tell me the science, please tell me the evidence.

Amanda Devine:
We've had a pause for 15 years in global warming and yet..

Doctor Patrick Moore:
18 years in fact - but they deny that actually - so it’s got to be - who are the real deniers here? It is the people who are denying that first off - the warming started in 1750 with the end of the little ice age, it has warmed a little bit since then - not that much, but one degree celsius makes a pretty big difference. The last year the Thames river froze over in London was 1814, and before that it was freezing over for about 300 years - not every year but fairly regularly. It has not frozen over once since 1814 and we didn’t have anything to do with that - there was no fossil fuels going into the air then. Now the last 18 years we've seen a pause after a slight rise from 1970 to the year 2000-  it's been in fits and starts - rising and dipping and rising some more - so its been generally going up for 250 years, after it went down before that from the medieval warm period which was centered from about 1000 years ago when it was as warm or warmer than it is today- I could go on for hours on this with the history - but just the recent history is now for 18 years there's been no perceptible warming of the Earth, during that time 25% of all the CO2 that humans have ever put into the atmosphere has gone into the atmosphere because its ramping up so much in the last years with China and India coming on strong with their coal production - so we've had 25% of all the CO2 go into the atmosphere and no warming has happened. What does that do with your cause and effect relationship?

 

Advantage of higher CO2 levels

The first long-term study comparing tillage practices under high CO2 levels showed that elevated CO2 caused soybean and sorghum plants to increase photosynthesis while reducing transpiration-the amount of water the plants release. This resulted in increased water use efficiency, whether the crops were grown with no-till or conventional tillage.


With the higher level of CO2, regardless of tillage method, soybean  photosynthesis increased by about 50 percent, while sorghum  photosynthesis rose by only 15 percent. This was expected because crops  like soybean, which have a C3 photosynthetic pathway, are known to  respond better to high CO2 levels than crops like sorghum and corn that  have a C4 photosynthetic pathway. Most plants worldwide are C3 plants

Please go to link for more info :http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100914.htm
 

Thermohaline current (THC), a crucial global current

Thermohaline current (THC), a crucial global current that moves surface water to the ocean depths. The THC is created by cold and salty water sinking at the poles. This current drags carbon dioxide rich water deep into the ocean and brings carbon dioxide poor water to the surface where it can in turn, absorb more carbon dioxide. A slowing of this current will again result in less atmospheric carbon dioxide being removed by the oceans.
 

 

[Home] [UFO/UAP] [Science?] [Climate Change?] [Wind Power?] [News] [OBE Research] [Anomalous objects]

silent enigma Copyright 2021 by dTh Australia V 2.1