The
ETS tax (Emission Trading Scheme)
Let's
put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!
ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to
12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
Read the following analogy and you will
realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.
Here's a practical way to understand Mr.
Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of
atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity.
Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.
20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water
vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon.
Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit
of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the
kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of
that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there
are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That’s the amount of carbon
dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts
in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a
hair. Out of a kilometre!
As a hair is
to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready
to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by a army of workers till its
1 kilometre length is surgically clean.
Except that Mr.
Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a
human hair on the roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution
problems to worry about.
It's hard to imagine that
Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is
one of the more pressing ones.
And I
can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that
pesky hair away.
|
The
official Australian delegation at Copenhagen is 114 people.
By comparison, the United
States, whose population is about 15 times that of Australia, has sent
195 and the
British 71.
Prime Minister Rudd is taking to Copenhagen:
• 11 personal staff
• A personal photographer
• An ‘Ambassador for Climate Change’ and a ‘Special Envoy for Climate Change’
(what’s the difference?)
• A ‘Political Adviser from the Department of Climate Change’!
(seriously, that’s
what they call themselves!)
• Kevin Rudd also needs an ‘Accommodation Liaison Officer’, a ‘Passport/Baggage
Liaison
Officer’
and seven (7) Media Advisers!
Dare
we suggest that our Prime Minister could do his job a little more
economically?
|
Back to Top
The
Copenhagen Conference
Is to be held in
mid-December 2009, when the world conference gathers to impose limits
on
greenhouse gases to stop "global warming."
However its Primary purpose is to Rope in the
Americans who refused to submit to the Kyoto Protocols that Al Gore
brought home in the Clinton era.
The long campaign to bring the United States under another global
regime -- the newest piece in the architecture of world government --
has been flagging since 2008. Why has the campaign stalled?
Because global warming has stalled.
The
hottest year of modern times, 1998, came and went a decade ago.
Back to Top
Copenhagen goal is "One-World Government"
'Global warming' to be used as 'pretext' for
'change'
A
former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says
the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference
in
Copenhagen is to use global warming hype as a
pretext to lay the
foundation for a one-world government.
"At
[the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen
this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher
Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at
Bethel University in St. Paul.
"Your
president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will
sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most
of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it.
Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700
attendees. "I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world
government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually
appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
"The
second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the
West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called,
coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they
haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the
third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."
In
an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring
scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monckton refuted
claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book
entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made
by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Monckton
argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at
the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the
treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.
"So,
thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world.
It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still
free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it,
your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your
humanity away forever.
"But
I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and
I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the
fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you
will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that
purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even
if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."
Monckton
is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes
for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming
hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in
the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States and
Australia in the
pursuit of international control of the Worlds Economy under a
one-world
government to be administered by the U.N.
Monckton's
lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can
be accessed on the Internet.
For the FULL STORY - GO TO;
http://www.hinterlandvoice.com.au/
Back
to Top
Climategate:
ordering a better scare for the colonials
The exchange and
comments presented
below by Andrew Bolt include
something that is really explosive for anyone with the most basic
knowledge of statistics. The Warmist scientist has undertaken to
present changes that are not statistically significant (i.e. random
changes) as if they WERE statistically significant. See the update at
the foot of the article. Once again we see a total lack of scientific
integrity among Warmists. The UEA is just a propaganda institution.
It's not a real university's anus
CSIRO alarmist Barrie Pittock tells off Climategate scientist Mike
Hulme of the University of East Anglia
for
not
presenting material that’s scary enough for green groups:
I would be very concerned if the material comes out under
WWF auspices in a way that can be interpreted as saying that “even a
greenie group like WWF” thinks large areas of the world will have
negligible climate change. But that is where your 95% confidence limit
leads.
Sorry to be critical, but better now than later!…
Dr A. Barrie Pittock Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact
Group CSIRO Atmospheric Research
Hulme agrees to help, up to a point, to hide some doubts:
My reason for introducing the idea of only showing changes
in T and P that *exceed* some level of ‘natural’ variability was a
pedagogic one, rather than a formal statistical one (I concede that
using ‘95% confidence’ terminology in the WWF leaflet is misleading and
will drop this). And the pedagogic role of this type of visual display
is to bring home to people that (some, much or all of) GCM simulated
changes in mean seasonal precip. for some regions do *not* amount to
anything very large in relation to what may happen in the future to
precip. anyway…
The point behind all this is to emphasise that precip. changes are less
well-defined than temp. changes *and* that we should be thinking of
adaptation to *present* levels of precip. variability, rather than
getting hung up on the problems of predicting future precip. levels.
This pedagogic thinking is hard to communicate in a short WWF brochure.
Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to
remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to
indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only ‘where they are
large relative to natural variability’, and to reduce my threshold to
the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the
effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in
the B1 scenario).
But I do not intend to abandon the concept. I think it important - even
for Greenie groups - to present sober assessments of magnitudes of
change. Thus making it clear that future changes in T are better
defined that future changes in P, and also to point out that future
emissions (and therefore climate change) may be as low as the B1
scenario (is B1 climate change negligible? I almost think so), whilst
also being possibly as high as A2 is I think very important.
The alternative is to think that such a more subtle presentation is too
sophisticated for WWF. But I think (hope) not. Thanks again Barrie for
forcing me to think through this again.
Pittock then explains why he’s so keen to “improve” this material - and
also illustrates just how close green groups are to the CSIRO
(whose
climate change risk expert Penny Whetton is married to a Greens
politician):
I should perhaps explain my delicate position in all this.
As a retired CSIRO person I have somewhat more independence than
before, and perhaps a reduced sense of vested interest in CSIRO, but I
am still closely in touch and supportive of what CAR is doing. Also, I
have a son who is now a leading staff member of WWF in Australia and
who is naturally well informed on climate change issues. Moreover,
Michael Rae, who is their local climate change staffer, is a member of
the CSIRO sector advisory committee (along with some industry people as
well) and well known to me. So I anticipated questions from WWF
Australia, and from the media later when the scenarios are released...
Hulme then alerts another colleague to this exchange, under an
interesting header, as an example of the massaging of their message to
fit an audience:
From: Mike Hulme To: Jennifer F Crossley
Subject: Re: masking of WWF maps
Word sure had got around the green traps
about how helpful the
University of East Anglia was prepared to be to green campaigners. Here
is an email from green entrepreneur Adam Markham to Hulme, asking for
“beefed up” scares and directing him to Pittock’s more alarming
scenarios, as and example of what WWF likes:
From: Adam Markham
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me
so far. They are worried that this may present a slightly more
conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In
particular, they would like to see the section on variability and
extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased
likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant
risk. Drought is also a particularly importnat issue for Australia, as
are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big
public splash on this they need something that will get good support
from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the
press). One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well
is: “The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397,
25 Feb 1999, p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
UPDATE
Reader Grant:
There is an explosive admission in this exchange that needs
to be drawn out and it is to do with the following comment:
Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and
I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word
the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only ‘where
they are large relative to natural variability’, and to reduce my
threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this
has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia
even in the B1 scenario
In statistics this is important because any 1st year undergrad is told
that the scientific approach for testing for significance is a 2-sigma
test; ie the 95% confidence interval. Results that are significant at
no more than 1-sigma significant are as good as meaningless in the
sense that they are no different to sheer randomness and would be
laughed all the way out of a 1st year course on stats.
SOURCE
Back to Top
Nature
will decide
Earth's future
By Professor Bob Carter, currently aboard a research ship near New
Zealand. He is a research professor at Australia's James Cook
University - where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth
Sciences between 1981 and 1999 - and the University of Adelaide
AS the
core samples from deep
underground pass through the logging
sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is
clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial
periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And
for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been
colder than today.
We modern humans are lucky to live
towards the end of the most recent
of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000
year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations
have evolved and flourished.
The cores tell the story that this
period is only a short interlude
during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of
the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back
more than 2 million years.
Together with 50 other scientists and
technicians, I am aboard the
drilling ship Joides Resolution. JR, as it is affectionately known, is
the workhorse of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international program
that is to environmental science what NASA is to space science.
JR's drilling crew can retrieve cores
up to 1km or more below the
seabed and we are drilling today about 80km east of South Island in New
Zealand. The ancient muds and sands that make up the sediment layers we
pass through are the most important record of ancient climate that
scientists possess. And they tell the tale that climate always changes.
Some core alterations are ruled by
changes in the Earth's orbit at
periods of 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, others by fluctuations in
solar output and others display oceanographic and climate shifts caused
by . . . we know not what. Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly:
sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not
fully understand.
Similar cores through polar ice
reveal, contrary to received wisdom,
that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed
- by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Yet the
public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon
dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange
cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?
The now numerous special interest
groups who continue to lobby for
unnecessary and economically harmful carbon dioxide taxation need to
appreciate that nature, not the world's governments, will determine
future climate. Second, that there is no scientific evidence that
warmings greater than the much-talked about 2C will cause environmental
catastrophe; rather, this number is one plucked out of the air for
reasons of political targetry and control. And, third, that to limit
atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450ppm, also a widely touted figure,
makes no sense, because past carbon dioxide levels attained more than
10 times this without known adverse environmental effects, while
greening the planet.
Politically popular though it may be,
the belief that atmospheric
carbon dioxide is the primary driver of average planetary temperature
is junk science. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450
million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are
estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.
It is simply science fiction to
believe that 450ppm of atmospheric
carbon dioxide and 2C of warming are magic numbers that somehow mark a
"tipping point"in Earth's climate system. Rather, they are politically
contrived targets, erected for the purpose of stampeding scientifically
innocent citizens into a gaping corral of carbon dioxide taxation.
The simplest explanation for the mild
warming that occurred in the late
20th century is that it was part of Earth's ever-changing pattern of
natural climate change and the job of scientists is to seek evidence to
test that interpretation. They have and literally thousands of
scientific papers to date have described climate evidence that is
consistent with natural change.
Despite all the efforts of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research
money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the
late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that
matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological)
climate change.
Melting glaciers (but, in some places,
advancing), rising sea levels
(but, in some places, falling), increasing numbers of storms (actually,
currently at a 30-year low), increasing numbers of polar bears and
changes in migratory patterns of birds may very well all have happened
or be happening. But these facts say nothing about a human causality
for such changes.
It is not for the independent climate
scientists (the so-called
"climate sceptics") to disprove that dangerous human-caused warming is
happening. Rather, it is for the alarmist scientists of the IPCC and
CSIRO to show that the simple idea of natural climate change can be
invalidated. This they have failed to do.
SOURCE
Back to Top
The
tide is turning: CNN
Extensively Covers Viewpoint of Climate
Change Skeptics
CNN made a real,
day-long effort on
Monday to address the
climate-change debate as a debate, giving skeptics of manmade climate
change a series of chances to match the leftist view, especially during
its evening programming. CNN is also the only U.S. TV news outlet so
far to send an anchor to the Climate Research Unit at the center of the
ClimateGate controversy.
International
correspondent Phil Black's interview of Lord Christopher
Monckton, a prominent skeptic of the theory of manmade global warming,
ran four minutes into the 6 pm Eastern hour. The “passionate skeptic on
climate change,” as Black referred to him, traveled to Copenhagen for
the UN’s climate change summit, and is one of the few skeptics of the
theory of manmade climate change in attendance. The CNN correspondent
actually compared belief in the theory to a religion at the beginning
of his report: “Copenhagen’s Bella Conference Center has become an
international temple for thousands of true believers, people who have
no doubt the planet is warming and humankind is to blame. But there are
a few people here who do not believe.”
Black included four sound bites from
Monckton in his report, and two
from manmade climate change believers-
Rajendra Pachauri from the IPCC
and Alex Steffen of the website WorldChanging.com:
MONCKTON: Most of the politicians
don’t know any science-
BLACK: Lord Christopher Monckton is one of them. He’s a member of the
British aristocracy and a passionate skeptic on climate change.
BLACK (on-camera): So you believe all of this is a colossal waste of
time and money?
MONCKTON: There’s no need for it.
BLACK: None?
MONCKTON: None whatsoever.
BLACK: There are a lot of people here who disagree with you.
MONCKTON: Yes, but they haven’t studied the science, most of them-
BLACK (voice-over): Monckton says the planet is not getting hotter, its
recent changes are natural, and there’s science to prove it. He’s among
the skeptics who have been emboldened by the so-called ‘ClimateGate’
scandal. Monckton says e-mails hacked and leaked from an English
university show climate scientists are fiddling with their figures and
misleading the world.
MONCKTON: Those scientists have been fabricating, inventing, tampering
with, altering, hiding, concealing and destroying data.
BLACK: The scientists who wrote the e-mails deny the allegations, but
they have developed so much momentum they were addressed directly
during the opening ceremony of the conference. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,
who leads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, defended his
organization against what he suspects is a direct attack.
DR. RAJENDRA PACHAURI, IPCC: The recent incident of stealing the
e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some
would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an
attempt to discredit the IPCC. But the panel has a record of
transparent and objective assessment stretching over 21 years,
performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners
of the globe.
BLACK: At this conference, Dr. Pachauri enjoys a clear majority of
support among activists, analysts, delegates- well, pretty much
everyone.
ALEX STEFFEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, WORLDCHANGIN.COM: It really has reached
a point where climate skepticism has been pretty comprehensively
debunked as a theory.
Lord Christopher Monckton; & Phil Black, CNN International
Correspondent | NewsBusters.orgBLACK: Try telling that to Lord
Christopher Monckton.
BLACK : So
what is your message to many thousands of people
who have come here from around the world that surround us now?
MONCKTON: Go
home, enjoy some quality time with your families- stop worrying about
the climate.
FULL STORY
: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/newsfeed/newsfeed.php?show.13
Back to Top
HOME
Contact
Us:
By
email: - marcoola@lycos.com
Back to Top
