Man Made Global Warming Hoax
Let's rid the airwaves of this bile.
 |
| Despicable comment. |
As Jo Nova writes (with H/t to Graham Young)
This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers. Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.Let's hold Williams' outbursts up against the New Scientist standards. On the Science show site (link)
If 95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority? Stephan Lewandowsky has studied scepticism. In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.Let's disregard the unscientific "IF" in the first line....
95, 96 or 97% of scientists say that human activity is driving the world temperature higher, why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority?First, the 97% was arrived at by a flawed poll. Surely you know that, Mr Williams? It has been exposed here, here, here etc
why is it that some people reject the view of the overwhelming majority?Well, perhaps because a consensus is not science, Mr Williams. You can push a hypothesis as much as you like, but once it has been falsified, it just becomes yesterday's idle thoughts. As Einstein said:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
When Marshall and Warren went against the consensus (that the cause of peptic ulcers was lifestyle)
they met the same derision that realist scientists are experiencing from the alarmists. Marshall and Warren scientifically showed that peptic ulcers could be treated with antibiotics. It has also "led to an increased understanding of the connection between chronic infection, inflammation, and cancer," according to a Nobel Prize news release. (Link)
The item then quotes Stephan Lewandosky (See also Lies-damn-lies-and-stephen-lewandosky.)
In the field of climate science the so-called sceptics he (Lewandosky) says are not sceptical, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.I will put this to you Mr Lewandosky (and Mr Williams)
In the field of climate science the alarmisists are not scientific, they are rejecting the evidence for ideological reasons, and a personal world view.
Oops, I probably should have posted my comment here, so apologies for the duplication! Whatever.
ReplyDeleteSo,to cilimate and politics. As the mercury creeps towards 40 here (don't laugh, Sydney, your turn tomorrow :-) I have been listening / watching the last Question Time session in the House for the year. I thought Great when the PM immediately challenged Tony A to a 15 min each way debate on her malfeasance. I thought he got off to a low key approach (I wouldn't have, but thought, maybe a good tactic), and built strongly on that, leaving no viewer in doubt that he was saying JG was (or had been) a crook.
So, she rolled over, lost it and blubbered, right? Come on! - we have all been watching her long enough now to know that whatever else she may be, she is one tough cookie / ditch fighter.
So in the end, who won? For me, TA (supported as usual by Bishop and Pyne - the latter with points of order), but Gillard did enough to ensure that the water remains muddied. Why didn't TA call her a crook outright, as she kept baiting him? Maybe you know, and can enlighten me, even if it would just have got him suspended.
And now, here's the link to The Climate Debate. Just as it's sooo easy for people here and elsewhere to accuse the PM of really damaging stuff, and shout about it, yet she doesn't roll over as demanded, it's the same with the Anthropogenic CO2 Climate Change prosletysers. And some of us, their opponents, make it easier for them by occasionally forgetting that we are talking about Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas caused significant Climate Change, not CC (or Global Warming) per se. So if you are one of the sceptics who just believes that Climate Change in toto, or even global warming over the past 150 years or more is a croc / lie, please stop reading now. Because it is. If you want to deny that we genuinely do seem to be going through a period of some instability (like 40C in Melb while we are still in Nov), please stop reading now. We (sceptics) can quote all the statistics, and extrapolate all the graphs we like, but the punters out there (ranging from homeless uneducated to PhDs) will still believe what they see and feel. So none of that is the real argument, which in a nutshell is, "Are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and particularly the very easily taxed CO2, significantly driving climate change?"
So far as I, and many much more learned experts are concerned, the answer is a resounding No. As in just hypothesised about, based on very dodgy modelling, not substantiated. Well folks, that's how I see the state of play, and it's vital to keep addressing the right issue, and not giving away any free shots.
Cheers al
ReplyDeleteVery salutary statistics – how inconsequential we are!!
China has 19% of the world’s population, but consumes 53% of the world's cement, 48% of the world's iron ore, 47% of the world's coal. And the majority of just about every other major commodity!
In 2010, China produced 11 times more steel than the United States New World Record: China made and sold 18 million vehicles in 2010. There are more pigs in China than in the next 43 pork producing nations combined.  China currently has the world’s fastest train and the world’s largest high-speed rail network.
China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power. But don’t use it themselves. While they manufacture 80% of the world’s solar panels, they install less than 5% and build a new coal fired power station every week. In 1 year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia's total output.
China currently controls more than 90% of the total global supply of rare earth elements. 
In the past 15 years, China has moved from 14th place to 2nd place in the world in published scientific research articles.
China now possesses the fastest supercomputer on the entire globe. 
At the end of March 2011, China accumulated US$3.04 trillionIn foreign currency reserves - the largest stockpile on the entire globe. Chinese consume 50,000 cigarettes every second.
They are already the largest carbon dioxide emitter and their output will rise 70% by 2020!
And Gillard and the Greens think they are saving the planet . . ..   . . . with a Carbon Tax!
The news this morning says that Sydney expects to reach temperatures over 43degrees and this has only happend twice in the last 150 years.
ReplyDeleteIf this Global warming is a modern thing that has only been caused in recent years, what caused the temperatures to climb over 43 degrees in Sydney on those previous days in the last 150 years?.
Surely it could not have been a natural cycle of warming and cooling because for that to be the case, the Govt and their "Eminent" tunnel vision experts would have egg on their faces and be proved wrong.
As Australia swelters, the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing record lows:
ReplyDeletehttp://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/a-tale-of-temperature-extremes.html
Before the rabid alarmists start blaming Australia's heat wave on man's emissions of the vital-to-life carbon dioxide, NCTCS blog recommends that they look at the rest of the world.
This was sent by a friend. it is too big for one so I have split it.
ReplyDeleteJust wish the do-gooders would read things like this and get off their bandwagon M
For anyone who believes the drivel that emanates from the Green and Left side of politics together with the attendant comments of their “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” bureaus, they should read this article.
Sure, it’s hot, in fact damn hot, but it has been hotter before, and it will be hotter than this again.
Sir John Henniker Heaton kindly recorded it all for us in 1879 in the Australian Dictionary Of Dates, which a reader has provided.
It is an invaluable primary resource, as you will see. (I have translated temperatures from fahrenheit to celsius).
December 27, 1790: "Great heat in Sydney , 39C in the shade. Settlement visited by myriads of flying foxes, birds dropped dead from the trees."
February 10 and 11, 1791: "On which days the temperature at Sydney stood in the shade at 41C, the heat was so excessive at Parramatta , made worse by the bushfires, that immense numbers of the large fox-bats were seen to drop from the trees into the water, and many dropped dead on the wing."
Heaton quotes from The Sydney Gazette of November 29, 1826: "The heat and hot wind of Saturday last excelled all that we ever experienced in the colony. On board the Volage man-of-war (a naval vessel), in the shade, the thermometer was 41C, and on the shore it was, in some parts of the town, 38C, and in others 40C.
"To traverse the streets was truly dreadful, the dust rose in thick columns, and the northwest wind, from which quarter our hot winds invariably proceed, was assisted in its heat by the surrounding country being all on fire, so that those who were compelled to travel felt themselves encircled with lambent flames. Sydney was more like the mouth of Vesuvius than anything else."
Again from The Sydney Gazette, February 21, 1832: "Saturday was one of the hottest days ever remembered. The recent rains having saturated the earth, the atmosphere was impregnated by an aqueous vapour not unlike steam issuing from a boiler, while the sun poured down all the fury of his heat. It was dreadful.
"Man and beast groaned beneath the oppression, and numbers of working oxen dropped down dead on the public roads."
The bullocks were even worse off on Saturday, March 18, 1832, which The Sydney Gazette reported was "insufferably warm. At 1pm, the thermometer was 54C in the sun. The cattle suffered much. Working
Working bullocks dropped dead."
ReplyDeleteOf course it was much hotter in Central Australia .
Heaton records explorer Captain Charles Sturt's account of November 11, 1845: "The wind, which had been blowing all the morning hot from the NE, increased to a gale, and I shall never forget its withering effects.
"I sought shelter behind a large gum tree, but the blasts of heat were so terrific that I wondered the very grass did not take fire. Everything both animate and inanimate gave way before it.
"The horses stood with their backs to the wind and their noses to the ground, the birds were mute, and the leaves of the trees fell like a shower around us.
I would like to see the Climate fraudsters Gore and Garnaut explain how the "Global Warming" happened here.
"At noon I took out my thermometer, graduated to 53C, and put it in the fork of a tree, and an hour afterwards when I went to examine it; the tube was full of mercury and the bulb burst."
On January 11, 1878, Heaton reported that, on the Lower Macquarie River , at 2.30pm, a thermometer registered 47C in the shade. At 5.30pm it was still 43C.
There were "disastrous bushfires throughout the south and west of NSW in January, 1870, fires burning on each side of the line on the southern railway, the railway porters and others beating it out with bushes, and waiting at the stations with water for the passengers to drink, and a truck on the Goulburn train catching fire near Liverpool on January 18".
He records years of drought (interspersed with floods), including the three-year drought from 1825-27: "One of the most severe droughts ever known in NSW, with great scarcity of water in Sydney and suburbs, only two months' supply being left in the Botany dams, and water being sold at a very high rate in Parramatta."
In January and February 1791, wrote Heaton, there were "several weeks of excessive heat, hot winds, birds dropped dead from trees and everything burnt up, stream of water supplying Sydney nearly dried up".
And so on.
Australians were religious about their climate in the past as well.
Heaton wrote they prayed for rain on November 2, 1858, and "for breaking up of drought" on November 2, 1876, and on March 1, 1878, with a fast day and "day of humiliation".
Australia has never had a mild and easy climate.
Whatever is the extent of global warming and any human contribution to climate change, exaggerating the 2013 heatwave is just another green lie which will blow up in all our faces.
Thanks, Peter.
ReplyDeleteI have re-posted this on the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics blog.
Peter, that is great stuff which REALLY strikes home. Graphs, bar charts, tables of figures and so on can cause eye - glazing even amongst the most devout of students, but eye witness reports like this really pack a punch.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, Australia has never had a mild and easy climate. That's something of which I am quite personally aware, as Melbourne rolls inexorably into a string of increasingly hot and dry days ahead.
Cheers al
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Government's pushing of Solar Panels is a far bigger con than the Pink Batts and other cons that cost us dearly.
For simplicity I have used hypothetical figures in my example. The opinion expressed here is my own.
Lets say that the Power Company charges $1.00 per unit for power.
If a customer uses 1,000 units, the cost is $1,000.00.
Those customers who have solar panels fitted (in this example) are to receive 50cents per unit rebate.
After paying the rebate to the customer with solar panels , the power company has a shortfall of 50cents per unit based on the cost of production of the electricity and delivery to the household.
On the example of a power bill of 1,000 units @ $ 1,000.00, that REBATE is $500.00 to the household.
The power company cannot produce and distribute electricity for less than the $1.00 per unit ($1,000.00 for the consumer in the example) , so the only thing that they can do is to add the $500.00 lost in the rebate to the consumer to the total amount of production.this actually means that the shortfall is passed on to the people who do not have solar panels by way of higher charges to cover what has to be given back to the solar panel users. In other words the non users of solar panels heavily subsidise the solar panel users.
A large percentage of consumers cannot afford solar panels, even if they wished that they could.
If it did get to a situation where every consumer was able to fit solar panels, there would be a massive increase in the cost of electricity because based on the above example, the power companies would have to return half of the cost of the production of the power to every consumer and the only way to recoup the 50% loss incurred by returning the rebate to every consumer is to raise the cost of production by the percentage lost.
Sure, the solar panel users are putting power back into the line, but the power companies have to pay them for that power and as such it then becomes a portion of the cost of production and distribution of the power.
The solar power is at best unreliable. There is no power when the sun does not shine. You cannot use the power directly into your appliances in your household because of the instability and fluctuation of production of that power so every unit of power that is used comes from the electricity grid and the power generated by the solar panels must go back into the grid for stability of supply.
If this was not the case, in the event of a blackout of the electricity system, you would be able to draw on your own production from your own solar panels for your own use. The people in my area who have solar panels have no electricity the same as everybody else when there is a blackout because you can't use your own electricity generated from your solar panels for your own use if the power mains are out.
What the Govt have done without any real consideration is hand the consumers over to the hands of the power generators who no doubt are thanking the Govt for their generous gesture.
ReplyDeleteI attended a seminar some years back where there was on expert on power generation etc. He stated that you could never recoup more than about 75% of all of the energy needed to manufacture Wind Generators or solar panels.
That is energy (which equates to carbon footprint) People see wind generators as something wonderful that you can go into a shop, buy a generator and HEY PRESTO instant electricity for free.
What this person was saying was that to honestly calculate the energy used in the production you have to consider ALL factors.
Start with the energy needed to mine the metals contained in the generator, then the energy used to transport the mined product to the steel works or foundry, then the energy required to machine or mould the components and assemble them, then deliver and assemble the generators, then the production of plastics, insulating materials, oil, protective coatings to prevent corrosion and on it goes.
With the ongoing need for maintenance, were and tear on the generator, the claim that you cannot recoup more than 75% of the ENERGY needed to produce a wind generator is not such a silly assumption.
People see only what is in front of them, Not was required to make the thing that is in front of them.
Too many highly qualified people see only the finished product and sadly they do not give consideration to the energy needed to create what is in front of them so they promote something as being the be all and end all for mankind when the energy and processes needed to produce something far out weighs the benefits and by building more things such as wind generators and solar panels without them actually seeing or understanding the processes needed and how in fact they can exceed the stated reductions in the carbon footprint.
They can actually be exceeding the accepted level because they do not see the object right from the start when it was still in the ground and take for granted the full cycle needed for production of a mechanical object.
Because they see only the finished product they fail to acknowledge the real cost and energy needed to make their favourite object.
This is how the Government see things. They do not consider all aspects of what they do before they rush in and because of this they are often wrong.
Take the coal and gas alone that is being sent out of the country to fuel massive industries overseas.
How many people have ever considered the massive ENERGY (not cost) required to mine transport and ship out of the country?.
How many people have ever considered the massive ENERGY that this will fuel overseas to produce things (like amongst other things, wind generators and solar panels)? Very few because they see only what is in front of them ready to go, so that is all that counts and so they don't comprehend the real impacts from everything that they buy.
If the Govt says that it is good and people like Garnaut and Gore say that it is good then it must be good because Juliar said so. It is a pity that more people do not look a little further into the processes needed to create what appears to be something cheap, simple and beneficial but sadly that is not the nature of people being misled by the Government.
Well said Peter. Pollution is also a big factor in wind generators - not from the windmills but from the magnets used in the generators which use rare earths, and the method of mining those in China has created a huge toxic inland sea (worse than Gladstone Harbour by all accounts! :0)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bobbyshred.com/fools/falsetemps.html
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting read.
It looks like the temperature readings here must have been made by the same people who are conducting the Air Monitoring and seaway testing in Gladstone.
Both examples are based on dishonest figures and cleverly placed test stations.
In Gladstone we are told that everything is very good and the air that we breath and the water in the harbour are better than good. It is amazing though how often critical testing stations are "out of commission" for periods of time that are the most likely to deliver a negative test.
ReplyDeleteLord Christopher Moncton is currently touring Australia. I'm sure he would relish the opportunity to debate Prof Tom Foolery, sorry Tim Flannery on the subject of global warming/climate change, or whatever the alarmists are calling it today, BUT would Flannery have the internal fortitude to accept the challenge if it was put to him. I think not.
Well said, Brendan. Actually I don't know of anyone who is a match for Lord Monckton.
ReplyDeleteAir pollution is an extremely significant problem, not CO2.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-pollution-idUSBRE9380PZ20130409
http://technology.ssc.nasa.gov/suc_stennis_water.html
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting link that makes more sense that just about everything that our Governments (and most other countries) can come up with.
This is truly amazing to realise that something so simple and so natural can have such a profound effect on the disposal of sewerage.
I first became aware of this when I was a Councillor on the Beaudesert Shire Council in the 70's. We were looking at alternative ways to treat sewerage and this came to our attention. Unfortunately they never went ahead with a pilot scheme.
It is just so simple that it is hard to believe that it actually works, but it does.
All that it entails is putting the sewerage effluent through shallow dams that are growing water hyacinth, a noxious weed that tends to clog up creeks and rivers and the hyacinth purifies the sewerage.
In those early days they pumped the sewerage through the weed until the shallow dam silted up, then they harvested the green plants and incorporated them in stock feed.
The silt on the bottom of the dam was then used to fertilise pastures because it was very clean when the process was finished.
No doubt since then they have refined the process and improved the efficiency of the method of treatment.
There are no chemicals involved in treating the sewerage and nothing is wasted. The big benefit is that it costs only a fraction of the conventional chemical treatment.
Read the article in the link. It will make you wonder why more of this type of thing is not researched more instead by Governments instead of taxing everybody harder to achieve what in most cases is far inferior to the results that have been achieved here by a very natural and safe process.
I thought that the way Gillard and co talk, Carbon Dioxide must be a very dangerous thing to have around the place.
ReplyDeleteAnybody watching the V8 Supercars at the weekend would have seen the racing cars with a big box inside the cabin.
This box is filled with DRY ICE, the solid form of carbon dioxide. They have a fan that blows through the box of CO2 and directly into the helmet of the drivers to keep them cool during the race.
There would be nothing more pure than frozen CO2 and obviously it has no effect on drivers travelling at 250 Kpm plus so why is the Government scaring the wits out of our kids by saying that it is very dangerous and will eventually kill everything off if we do not stop creating it.
I remember some years back when it was then "the Ozone Layer" that was going to kill us all.
One of my brothers came for a visit and had his young son (about 7 at the time) and he was terrified because his teacher at Blackwater had impressed on the class that Ozone was a deadly poison gas and so we had to stop creating it, same as carbon dioxide now. He was genuinely terrified that we were all going to be poisoned by Ozone because the teacher had said so and teachers never lie.
So, Peter, CO2 is good for V8 Super Car Drivers (or should that be Super Cardrivers?)
DeleteI know that it is good in my beer, or if you are a Tea-Totaller, in any Carbonated (read CARBON dioxide) soft drink.
RE the Ozone Layer, my Bro-in law got his PhD with a thesis on the Ozone Layer.
My wife has said that, for family harmony, I should lay off him with my details of the falsified AGW hypothesis.
His mind is set!
Is it a falsified AGW hypothesis or a falsified CO2 hypothesis?
DeleteEntertaining repartee lads, and underneath it, a very neatly and tellingly made point. Well done.
ReplyDeleteCheers al
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteHere is some new info you may like to factor into the CO2 debate.
http://www.sciencecodex.com/marine_algae_show_resilience_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions-110402
Geoff, more news here. Maybe you have seen it already.
ReplyDeletehttp://au.businessinsider.com/NASA-SCIENTISTS-DISPUTE-CLIMATE-CHANGE-2012-4
Bloody hell. This will be making the Climate change fraudsters feel a bit sick about now.
DeleteWe should all send a copy of this link to our fraudster Primed Monster (Juliar). It will be interesting to see how she handles this one.
G'day John,
DeleteBack in January I wrote of these ex-NASA scientists
No imminent threat exists from man-made CO2
It looks as if they have gained a few more disgruntled.
Another failure of my super links.....
Deletehttp://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/no-imminent-threat-exists-from-man-made.html
Another update:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14919
There was a brilliant bit of reporting on the front page of the Courier Mail, Monday 17th June.The Scientists that comprise the "Climate Commission" (the only "commission" here should be them being committed to a mental institution) made the extraordinary claim that: "35,000 Queensland homes are at risk of inundation as seas warm and levels rise and that sea levels are rising at TWICE THE INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE in Torres Strait"
ReplyDeleteI might not be as educated as they are but even with my basic knowledge of the properties of water I cannot see how water can become higher in any given area without affecting the entire body of water. Can these learned employees of Gillard's circus explain how water will rise in just one area, caused by the most natural and vital element on the earth, Carbon Dioxide and why does it not even out over all of the ocean.
These supposed scientists take us for even bigger fools than Gillard and her circus do and if they believe that the properties of water have changed recently to the extent that it will rise above all other water in certain places without rising in other places, then they are seriously in need of medical help.
I have been sitting here all night with a bucket of water trying to prove the theory of Gillard's circus scientists and try as I may I cannot get that bucket of water to rise higher on one side than the other and stay there as they are suggesting is happening in the Torres Strait. I tried tipping the bucket a bit. I tried all sorts of things but the water would not rise in one particular part of the surface. It always went back to a level surface without any bumps, the same as is the case in the Torres Strait.
Don't insult us with Bu....it that you can't prove and that defies all genuine science and logic.
There are claims that some (just some) islands are being inundated by rising waters but they seem to give no thought to the more reasonable possibility that the islands are actually sinking.
There have been Islands throughout history reported to have sunk into the sea or rising again and with the very heavy undersea activities in the world of late it is possible that the islands established on sand may be sinking because of underwater liquification of the base that the islands stand on.
u-alofahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/21/tonga-volcano-island-nuk
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/maiken.asp
Here are just 2 examples of islands being born, so why is it not possible that islands also sink into the ocean and die.
If underwater action can create, then it can also take away.
Note that Snopes, a recognised authority on fake reports has certified the Maiken event as genuine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/21/tonga-volcano-island-nuku-alofa
DeleteSomething went wrong with the copy and paste with this one so here it is again (I hope)
Good one, Peter. It's scaremongering for sure.
ReplyDeleteThere are currently rumblings going around that Malcolm Turnbull should replace Abbott but to do so would make the situation in Australia worse than what we have now in the dis-functional Labor party.
ReplyDeleteThese seem to originate from the Labor camp but there is probably also a bit of it being released by his own camp or even outside.
Running almost in parallel are the statements starting to come from Goldman Sachs in the lead up to the election regarding global warming and warnings about coal, gas and alternative energy.
Goldman Sachs are so powerful that they influence Governments around the world
Goldman Sachs (GS) are the architects and controlling force behind the World wide Emissions Trading Schemes and if they can get a world wide ETS floated they stand to make billions of dollars.
Turnbull is as fanatically passionate as GS in this regard and with his former association with GS, makes you wonder if he wouldn’t make a very good front man in Australia for them.
When he left GS, was he given a very generous share portfolio??
He has previously been Chairman, Managing Director and Partner in Goldman Sachs.
Prior to his involvement with GS he established an Investment Banking Company (Whitlam Turnbull and Co) in partnership with Nicholas Whitlam (Gough’s son) and former Labor Premier Neville Wran and it was probably about that time that he was considering joining the ALP
His involvement with several companies that went belly up causing thousands of ordinary Australians to lose everything including their retirement money.
Some of these are FAI/HIH insurance, Onetel and Ozemail
Involvement in Sylvania Forest Products, in the Solomon Islands where forests were clear felled demonstrates that concern for the environment is not of real importance when money is to be made.
Here are a few links of interest.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s555556.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s313490.htm
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/05/compassion-for-turnbull-he-just-wants-his-balls-back.html
http://austeaparty.com.au/web/malcolm-bligh-turnbull-or-is-that-turncoat
http://www.solomontimes.com/news/a-former-logger-becomes-australian-federal-opposition-leader/2632
The last one here is from the Solomons Islands Newspaper.
I for one would not feel comfortable with Turnbull running the show because his obsession with money and forcing us into a world wide ETS scheme do not sit well especially when some of the past activities involving him are considered.
There just seems to be too many companies and schemes failed or steeped in controversy to be comfortable with such a person as our head of Govt..
The link below tells how the Govt may be charging owners of solar panels a higher rate for power than non panel users.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/grid-costs-may-hit-solar/2061458/
The only reason that people installed solar panels was because the Govt lied to the people (again) and convinced them that they were concerned about the future.
Hundreds of thousands of people were conned by the Govt and now stand to lose money because the govt are going to try and raise their power charges above all others.
What was the point in installing solar panels if power charges are to rise to a level that means that they not only did as the Govt said but are now to be penalised because they did do as the Govt said.
This obviously is an admission by the Govt that they were intending all along to do this or alternately it is an admission that the "commitment" by them to reduce "carbon dioxide" was a scam and not an honest attempt to control "carbon dioxide gas" and that their "green " credentials are nothing more than fake words designed to hoodwink the public.
Hypocritical bastards who once again show that they care for nothing except their own thirst for power and ego.
When will the Governments at all levels be returned to an "elected Government status" as was created in the Australian Constitution at Federation and NOT as a corporate status declared by grubby Politicians without a referendum of the people to determine if that is what the people want.
Here is an excellent article by Tim Blair of The Daily Telegraph: Looks as though I'll to post in two parts.
ReplyDeleteAustralia's ablaze with climate clowns
TIM BLAIR •
The Daily Telegraph•
October 28, 201312:00AM
AUSTRALIA is a deeply puzzling land, especially to foreign media types. Even basic geography is sometimes a cause of bewilderment. For example, in 2011 Britain's Daily Mail tried to depict the extent of that year's Queensland floods with a helpful map of eastern Australia. This isn't a particularly difficult cartographic assignment, but the Mail managed to get it wrong, inventing the brand new state of Capricornia to Queensland's north.
The current NSW fires have prompted similar blunders. Last week the US television network NBC ran a graphic intended to show the range of the fires. They turned out to be far more extensive than anyone in Australia was aware.
NBC may have sourced their information from a Geoscience Australia monitoring site that lists hazard reduction burns and other non-threatening fires along with the massive conflagrations throughout NSW. The result was a graphic showing almost the entire northwest of Australia covered with flames. Darwin hasn't seen the likes of this since the Japanese bombing in World War II. Poor Capricornia copped it again as well. So did arid desert areas, which apparently now feature rare combustible dirt.
Elementary geographic and factual errors are one thing. It gets worse when ignorant outsiders lecture us about our own country. Former US vice-president turned global warming millionaire Al Gore barged in on local affairs last week, courtesy of the ABC.
"The Australian Prime Minister has said in the last couple of hours that bushfires are a function of life in Australia and nothing to do with climate change," presenter Annabel Crabb asked. "What do you make of those remarks?"
"Well, it's not my place to get involved in your politics," Gore replied, before doing exactly that.
"It reminds me of politicians here in the US who got a lot of support from the tobacco companies and who argued to the public that there was absolutely no connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer," Gore said. "And for 40 years the tobacco companies were able to persuade pliant politicians within their grip to tell the public what they wanted them to tell them."
Gore should know. He was one of those pliant politicians, accepting campaign contributions from tobacco companies even after his older sister died of lung cancer. If you could burn hypocrisy, Al Gore would be the planet's single largest energy source.
Second half of Tim Blair article.:
DeleteTime magazine's Brooklyn-based Bryan Walsh also took aim at Abbott in a subtle piece headlined "Climate Change Affects Australia's Epic Wildfires - No Matter What Prime Minister Says."
Oddly, Australian leftists lap this stuff up. Show them a non-interfering British royal and they scream about independence and a republic. The same types usually wail about US cultural domination of Australian. Show them a couple of climate clowns from Brooklyn and Nashville, on the other hand, and they can't wait to put a link up on Twitter.
Anyway, the grand authority of Walsh's Time piece was slightly undermined by a few subsequent corrections. "An earlier version of this article misstated that New South Wales is in south-western Australia. It is in south-eastern Australia," read one of them.
This was followed by another: "An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a former Prime Minister of Australia. She is Julia Gillard, not Gilliard."
So Walsh doesn't know anything about Australian politics or even where the fires were, but he sure knows what caused them. He's able to work that out from New York. For a more accurate view, let's turn to former CSIRO bushfire researcher David Packham, who described the supposed link between fires and climate change as "absolute nonsense".
"If there is any global warming, the global warming is so slow and so small that the bushfire event is totally overrun by the fuel state," Packham continued. But what would he know? He's only an Australian who happens to have studied bushfires for more than 50 years. Warmies prefer their climate advice to be global.
This update on news from COP 19 should open a few eyes.
ReplyDeletehttp://notrickszone.com/2013/11/21/spiegel-describes-cop-19-un-conference-descends-into-a-climate-circus-ngos-fume-and-boycott-every-single-issue-in-dispute/
Where are the alarmist/fraudsters, Gore, Flannery and Suzuki now hiding? We are experiencing some of the hottest weather in living memory (not the hottest that has occurred though) and some others in their defective gene pool are claiming that the earth is warming up faster than they had predicted.
ReplyDeleteWhy are Gore, Flannery and Suzuki not out trying to explain how Global warming is causing some of the heaviest ice buildups ever experienced in the Antarctic, IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOTTER THAN NORMAL SUMMER.
We have been constantly bombarded with the BS about the ice melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic but in reality the opposite is happening.
We not only have the idiots who headed into the Arctic to prove that there would be no ice in the North West Passage, having to be saved in very dangerous conditions because of the coldest ever freezes there. The ice extends right from Alaska to Russia and it is totally impossible to move in the ice there.
Now we have the Antarctic also freezing to the point that very dangerous rescue attempts have to be employed to ensure the safety of dozens of people stranded in a ship locked into the ice. AND THIS IS SUMMER. Why is the ice not melting and what will the result be when the winter moves to the southern hemisphere and the Antarctic starts to "cool down"?
Where are the alarmist/fraudsters, Gore, Flannery and Suzuki now hiding? We are experiencing some of the hottest weather in living memory (not the hottest that has occurred though) and some others in their defective gene pool are claiming that the earth is warming up faster than they had predicted.
ReplyDeleteWhy are Gore, Flannery and Suzuki not out trying to explain how Global warming is causing some of the heaviest ice buildups ever experienced in the Antarctic, IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOTTER THAN NORMAL SUMMER.
We have been constantly bombarded with the BS about the ice melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic but in reality the opposite is happening.
We not only have the idiots who headed into the Arctic to prove that there would be no ice in the North West Passage, having to be saved in very dangerous conditions because of the coldest ever freezes there. The ice extends right from Alaska to Russia and it is totally impossible to move in the ice there.
Now we have the Antarctic also freezing to the point that very dangerous rescue attempts have to be employed to ensure the safety of dozens of people stranded in a ship locked into the ice. AND THIS IS SUMMER. Why is the ice not melting and what will the result be when the winter moves to the southern hemisphere and the Antarctic starts to "cool down"?
$400,000 donation to the warmists to ferry them outa deep ice.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/hit-for-ice-rescue-revealed/story-fn59nm2j-1226794662899?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6840243#