Category Archives: IPCC

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine?

Will Earth Henceforth be Known as the Planet with the Reflective Personality?

I thought IPCC stood for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but after reading this article I think perhaps it should be changed Intergovernmental Panel on Crack Cocaine. Why say you?

Well, I was taken aback by an article n the Telegraph today titled “IPCC  ‘considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change.’ I mean you have to wonder if  they’re all smoking crack? Here’s some snippets from the Telegraph.

Reflective aerosols would be sent into space under a series of radical “geo-engineering” measures being considered by the UN climate science body to tackle climate change, leaked documents disclose.

What are they planning to do send deodorant into outer space? Some aerosol deodorants do use aluminum, which I suppose might reflect all that nasty sunlight. We might even freshen up the planet if we send up a rocket full of the right scent. Imagine not having to buy bathroom spray anymore? I guess this could put Fabreeze out of business, though.

Or, perhaps they could use tiny little mirrors? I mean it really does go hand-in-hand with the crack smoking. They could call it the “smoke and mirrors” solution to climate change, global warming, climate disruption. I think I’ll have to reflect upon this for a while.

The article closes with……..

A spokesman for the IPCC was unavailable for comment.

I wonder what the spoksman was smoking I mean doing?


More CO2 Insanity that you can read all about at the source below.

Source: The Telegraph



Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Geoengineering, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Radiation, Science, Solar

Top Scientist Says New Solar Wobble to Prolong Global Cooling

By: John O’Sullivan

As a new solar minimum takes our planet towards global cooling an increasing number of scientists give credence to a new theory blaming our Sun’s wobble.

It started in 2007 when scientists saw that gravitational forces in our solar system may have a huge impact on Earth’s climate. Professor Ivanka Charvátová, CSc. from the Geophysical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, explains why there is suddenly so much interest in her theory in an exclusive interview with

Professor Charvátová calls it Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) and she claims it will have serious impacts on our climate. She says a predictable “wobble” of our Sun called barycenter shift alters Earth’s weather patterns. Few climatologists have yet studied this phenomenon. But the evidence supporting Professor Charvátová’s SIM theory is becoming ever more compelling.

Our Wobbling Sun

Increased international interest in the SIM ‘wobble effect’ began after Australian scientist Dr. Richard Mackey published a paper addressing the effects of the barycenter shift in The Journal of Coastal Research in 2007. Mackey drew inspiration from the work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge.

Fairbridge was one of the first English-speaking experts to appreciate the significance of Professor Charvátová’s findings. The Czech expert had suddenly stolen the limelight because, as she says „I was the only one in the whole world who got the 23rd sunspot cycle prediction right.”

She recalls, “Even before my major discovery came, Prof R.W.Fairbridge contacted me after I published an article about SIM periodicity in Paris.” The publication was in her former name, Jakubcová.

Climatologists Accused of Ignoring New Science

When asked how much of this groundbreaking new science the UN’s beleaguered climate panel, the IPCC, took into account in their global warming reports, she answered, “Nothing at all. They are allergic to SIM.”

She explained that traditional thinking only considered science that supports the greenhouse gas theory which, in turn, attributes a substantial component of climate change to human influence. Professor Charvátová laments that the IPCC still fails to consider a whole range of climate forcing phenomena with any solar-terrestrial link, e.g. cosmic rays, geomagnetic, solar gravitational forces, volcanic activity, etc.


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Solar, Space Weather

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

By: John O’Sullivan

How saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels.Evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming was always slim, now it lies cruelly exposed both by a cruel blowback and it’s not just coming from within the science.A far more devastating catastrophe is unfolding and it is entirely the product of the mad rush to biofuels: third world famine. Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation. Why did it happen?

Kyoto Protocol: The Trigger to Mass Starvation

What mechanism prompted mankind to instigate this genocide of the world’s poor?  The Kyoto Protocol. International governments signed up to the idea that biofuels were going to be the better, cleaner, greener source for mankind’s energy needs in a new utopia predicted for us by ‘expert’s inside the United Nations.

Canadian Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch is as concerned as many independent scientists at the alarming rate at which this international food crisis is now escalating.

Kalmanovitch is semi-retired now and not in fear of having his scientific career tarnished by blowback from speaking out. He argues that the facts easily demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol is based entirely on fraudulent science.

Misguided Climate Scientist Primed the Politicians

Honest scientific inquiry serves the single purpose of advancing human knowledge and understanding free of any bias or ulterior motivation and it is clear that promoting “human caused global warming” a full nine years after the world had already started cooling serves no such lofty purpose.

Kalmanovitch accuses a small clique of self-serving climate researchers for violating the fundamental ethics of science protocol and propagating the false science that made the Kyoto Accord the international vehicle for crimes against humanity. Listening to his arguments you cannot help but see he has a point.

So what was the root catalyst for this cataclysm? Astonishingly, you can pin a lot of it on one well-intentioned but misguided do-gooder. His name: Professor James Hansen. Hansen was NASA’s bright-eyed scientist back in 1988. The eager climate modeler appeared before a Congressional Committee and prophesized that mankind would kill the planet if it continued to burn coal and gasoline at modern industrial rates.

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.”

Hansen made unfounded and highly alarmist claims based on his computer forecasts. He predicted doomsday scenarios that panicked Congress and that wave of fear stampeded the world into believing in a non-existent crisis. Global temperatures have never rocketed as Hansen forecast. In fact all five global temperature datasets show zero net global warming over the past decade in spite of record increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (climate scientists have now grudgingly conceded no statistically significant rise in temperatures has occurred since 1998 from their doomsaying). But once the stampede was launched it caused a rush to biofuels that stripped millions of crop acreage from the world’s food basket.

But more sickening is that many have made sizeable fortunes from trumpeting a short period of warming that lasted from (1975-1998); a vast international array of speculators in wind, solar, wave and biofuels alternatives are onboard the great global warming gravy train.

Hansen’s friends in the infant science of climatology have also fed well off government grants where the ‘climate change’ industry generates tens of billions annually in this self-perpetuating Ponzi scheme that symbiotically melded the interests of speculators with climate researchers.

In effect, those great riches and shining scientific careers were together built upon exploiting a 0.6 C rise in temperatures that all but vanished in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Alternative Scientific Views Now Come to the Fore

But since Hansen’s watershed moment in 1988 the science has moved on and many independent scientists, not on the government grant gravy train, have cast their eyes over the numbers for carbon dioxide (CO2), the prime bogeyman of climate alarmism.

From physical measurement of the Earth’s radiative spectrum impartial eyes saw that the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation accessed by CO2, is so close to saturation that it is a physical impossibility for any increase in that trace gas to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

Analysts then looked back at the natural warming since the 1830’s that ushered in the end of the Little Ice Age, a time 100 years before any scientist claims humans had impact on the climate. They say natural warming in the order of 0.5°Centigrade per century. We can calculate this to show that the maximum possible effect from CO2 increases is just 0.1°C per century of the claimed 0.6°C per century of the observed temperature increase.

Hansen and his self-serving followers in climatology conveniently chose to ignore such inconvenient truths.  Kalmanovich seethes, “They falsely attributed the effect of CO2 to the full 0.6°C and incorporated a range of wavelengths from 7 to 14 microns when CO2 only has an effect over a range from 13.5 to 17 microns and the wavelength band is at least 80 percent saturated. Though never stated explicitly this formed the basis for the CO2 forcing parameter which Hansen used in his earlier climate models and is still used by the IPCC today with the basic formula of 5.35ln(2) = 3.71watts/m2 for a doubling of CO2.”

Like other independent scientists Kalmanovich saw that the fuss all stems from a 1981 paper by Hansen that was peer-reviewed and published in SCIENCE magazine. Here’s where Hansen’s alarmist and skewed climate models captivated scientific literature on the matter. It is by repeated reference to Hansen’s original paper and his 1988 modification of it that the current climate change issue was premised.

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

All the other evidence is either of warming or misrepresentations of the greenhouse effect but never of an actual relationship between the two other than a stated correlation stating that CO2 increased and global temperature increased and therefore CO2 caused the global temperature increase.

Kalmanovich’s findings have been corroborated by a group of independent scientists calling themselves the ‘Slayers’ who claim to have refuted the greenhouse gas effect.

They agree that correlation between temperatures and CO2 is easily refuted and they cite the same numbers used by the IPCC in the 2001 report.That report shows cyclic warming and cooling trends that are completely out of step with CO2 emissions as explained by Kalmanovich, “it shows rapid warming from 1910 to 1942 with only a trivial 14 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. That is followed by 33 years of a global cooling trend with a 500 percent increase in CO2 emissions from 1942 to 1975.”

Greenhouse Gas Theory Falls Apart

Kalmanovich argues that is more than enough physical evidence to completely destroy the greenhouse gas theory. But that requires the doomsayers to accept numbers and scientific arguments that they have not yet been prepared to do.

The irony of this travesty is that Hansen himself never claims in absolute terms that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Kalmanovich notes,  “Hansen instead uses the output from his climate models to make this claim absolving him of having his statements challenged.”

This technique was masterfully employed by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth in which he makes no claims directly but shows out of context snippets of evidence to make the claims for him.

Here is Kalmanovich in-depth reasoning:

The satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) demonstrate that OLR is responding strictly to the fourth power of the Earth’s absolute temperature in perfect accordance to basic physics theory, but is in no way responding to the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1979. This completely refutes the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which is based on an assumed “enhanced greenhouse effect” from increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but these satellite measurements demonstrate conclusively that this enhanced greenhouse effect from GHG emissions never actually existed!

This single physical observation makes the Kyoto Protocol completely fraudulent, and anyone promoting the concept of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels enhancing the greenhouse effect in support of this fraudulent Kyoto Accord, must be seen as complicit in this fraud.

Kalmanovich then reaches a devastating conclusion:

“This is not a trivial scientific error because over 6.5% of the world’s grain has been removed from the global food supply to serve as feedstock for the 85 billion litres of ethanol produced annually as fuel in accordance with the dictates of this fraudulent UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.”

It is basic food staples that are being removed from the global food supply; the wealthier portion of the world’s 6.6 billion people end up paying substantially more for their food but the poor simply starve, making this Kyoto Accord a true “crime against humanity” and those who have fabricated the false science on which this crime is based are therefore guilty of being complicit in this “crime against humanity”.

Green Energy Promise Just a Pipe Dream

Americans are fast waking up to the harsh reality that this is all pain for no gain. There is stagnation in constructing conventional power generating sources in the wake of large government subsidies to wind and solar power generating facilities. That has dramatically increased power bills but has provided virtually zero additional peak power to consumers.

There is also a huge moral issue in the US. It removes more food from the global food supply than any other country in the manufacture of ethanol for fuel, making Americans key culprit in this crime against humanity. In the United States a staggering 39.7 percent of the world’s ethanol is created from crops that should be used as food.

The new moral question now to be posed is: if the US government was truly looking after the interests of the people then shouldn’t better investment ought to be made in natural gas and coal conversions to liquid fuels? That would bring the price of gas to under $2.50/gal. President Obama could then do away with subsidizing biofuels production, which only serves to raise the price of gas at the pumps and add to world hunger.

(The 85 billion litres of ethanol production comes from a compelling Marketwire article.

Why is 2011 the Critical Year?

Europe views 2011 as a critical year as member countries ramp up their production and use of ethanol to meet the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive. In this year alone, Europe is expected to produce 5.4 billion liters of ethanol that is a 15 per cent increase over 2010 (see table).

World Ethanol Fuel Production in Million Liters

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Europe 1,627 1,882 2,814 3,683 4,615 5,467
Africa 0 49 72 108 165 170
Americas 35,625 45,467 60,393 66,368 77,800 79,005
Asia/Pacific 1,940 2,142 2,743 2,888 3,183 4,077
World 39,192 49,540 66,022 73,047 85,763 88,719

Source: F.O. Licht

The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance promotes “biofuels friendly policies internationally and represent over 65 per cent of the global biofuels production from 44 countries.” They predict only growth in this voracious business and if their numbers are correct, a death sentence is being issued on millions more in the future.

World Ethanol Production Forecast 2008-2012 by Country, Millions of Gallons

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAGR, %
Brazil 4,988 5,238 5,489 5,739 5,990 2.8%
U.S. 6,198 6,858 7,518 8,178 8,838 5.7%
China 1,075 1,101 1,128 1,154 1,181 1.4%
India 531 551 571 591 611 2.2%
France 285 301 317 333 349 3.2%
Spain 163 184 206 227 249 6.9%
Germany 319 381 444 506 569 9.7%
Canada 230 276 322 368 414 9.9%
Indonesia 76 84 92 100 108 5.6%
Italy 50 53 55 58 60 2.8%
ROW 2,302 2,548 2,794 3,040 3,286 5.7%
World 16,215 17,574 18,934 20,293 21,653 4.6%

(Note that these are imperial gallons and not U.S. gallons. This is why the 2010 value of 18,934 million gallons is 85,763 million liters and not 73,653 million liters as would be calculated for US gallons).

In this mad, bad crazy world western good intentions spawned a crime against humanity; the law of unintended consequences turned the Kyoto Accord into a perverse death sentence to millions. Now we must put an end to this genocide.

Source: John O’Sullivan


Filed under Biofood, Biofuel, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Energy, Food, Global Warming, Green Energy, IPCC, John O'Sullivan

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

By: John O’Sullivan

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind the man-made global warming new research shows the numbers were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).

A team of dedicated international experts, known as the ‘Slayers,’ all highly qualified in their respective fields, spent the past year deliberating over the deep-rooted errors in the calculations employed in the greenhouse gas theory. Their findings are devastating to all those who claim carbon dioxide and the ‘greenhouse effect’ heats our atmosphere.

The standard argument of a clique of climatologists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is as follows:

  • A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
  • The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
  • This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.
  • The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

This is the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) examined closely by a team of professors of physics, mathematics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology who joined forces to put the numbers under a fresh microscope.

This group of 20+ specialist scientists has given the infant (and generalist) science of climatology a much-need shake up. Indeed, the ‘Slayers’ say a monumental paradigm shift is now very much under way.

Below, in simplified form, we examine in three parts how their brilliant analysis has eviscerated one of the most costly and mistaken theories of modern science, man-made global warming.

Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide

In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.

Physicist, Joe Postma, in this epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,

“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us. ”

He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is “the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.

In the future, says Joe, people will declare: “The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night-time”.

Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.

Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:

“We all agree that the atmosphere has an “atmosphere effect.” But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”

In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Casey, gives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:

“If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”

What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000 ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36 percent.

Casey finds,

“That would represent a 0.36 percent increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18 percent and a ceiling cooling of 0.18 percent of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000 ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface.”

“However, even if this wasn’t a negligible enough effect, Casey finds the proverbial doubling of CO2 would only contribute a change of 0.0040C at the surface”.

Step Three: Exposing the Idiocy

Groupthink is ‘Step Three’ in our explanation of how climatology got itself into such a muddle. Here’s a perfect example of scientific idiocy displayed by someone who ought to know better. Postma shows how a reality disconnect by one such theorist makes a mockery of IPCC numbers when applied to the real world. He explains,

“Yesterday a professor tried to tell me that a blackbody (BB) would heat itself up if its radiation would shine back on it – if it was surrounded completely by a perfect mirror.

I told him that all that would happen is you’d get a standing electromagnetic wave between the BB and the mirror, with a frequency spectrum and flux density equal to that of the BB – there’d be no spontaneous increase of temperature.  50C is 50C and there’s no way to get more than 50C, from 50C.  The only way to get more than 50C is to bring in some outside work or something hotter than 50C.”

Postma then enlightened the perplexed professor that it’s impossible to make candles or insulation warm itself by its own radiation.  “If we could make a candle burn hotter by reflecting it’s light back onto it, that would have been discovered long ago.”

The Slayers thus ask us to put it all in terms of radiation and conduction being analogous modes of heat transfer.  Then it becomes plainly obvious and ridiculous.

Like his learned colleagues Postma suggests climatologists apply a little more common sense and joined up thinking; their heat transport equations should properly be addressed in terms of conduction such that radiation and conduction are simply MODES of heat transfer. If an object can heat itself via its own, or “colder” radiation, then it should also be able to heat itself by conducting with itself, or conducting with a cold body.

“An object conducting with itself to make itself hotter?  What the heck does that even mean?  An object conducting with a colder one and thereby becoming hotter?  I don’t think so,” insists Postma.

Thus when we start to accept that conduction and radiation are analogous modes of heat transfer, then it dawns on us all that the laws work the same way with both of them.

Therefore, by working through this ‘Three Step Greenhouse Effect Debunk’ we are left with only one conclusion: IPCC junk (generalist) science is well and truly busted by the specialists in their fields.

Source: John O’Sullivan


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Science

Berkeley Prof Takes Down the Hockey-Stick Graph

Watch a Cal Berkeley Professor to see how the infamous Hockey-Stick Graph indeed hid the decline and why Climategate didn’t make false allegations about ‘tricks’ and “hide the decline.” He shows you the ‘tricks’ used. This is yet more proof that the ‘investigations’ ‘exonerating’ some of those involved in the Climategate debacle were so much whitewash.


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Science

Thousands Rally in Australia to Demonstrate Against Carbon Tax

By: John O’Sullivan

A concerted Australian grassroots campaign holds rallies in six major cities to protest the imposition of climate change taxes and demand new election.

Thousands of protestors are challenging Prime Minister, Julia Gillard’s, “undemocratic” climate policies demanding either an immediate election or that her government drops all such proposals. They say imposing the taxes would be a betrayal of democratic principles because Gillard was elected with no mandate to raise any such taxes.

Speaking at the event will be leading MPs and scientists opposed to climate taxes. In response one Government Minister (Albanese) labeled the rally participants as ‘ratbags.’

A press release by organizer, Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition (March 23, 2011) announces that 22 diverse associations representing tens of thousands of Aussies will put the Gillard government’s environmental tax policies to the test. The Carbon Sense Coalition claims “thousands of Australians all over the country have signed a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard opposing the carbon tax.”

Skeptics say the government is wrongly basing its decisions on the discredited science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Climate Taxes Will Achieve Little or No Impact

Forbes adds:

“This tax on carbon dioxide will have no effect whatsoever on global climate, little effect on the production of carbon dioxide but a large effect on the cost of living and job prospects for Australians. This is merely a wealth redistribution scheme where most of the wealth will be consumed on compliance, regulation, red tape, subsidies and price supports for the Climate Change Industry.”

Protesters say any such tax would hurt the Australian economy and gravely impact families, imposing an additional $300 a year on household energy bills. Australia produces only one percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, based on IPCC calculations, such a tax levied for 50 years will reduce global temperatures by an indiscernible 0.015 degrees centigrade and 2mm rise in sea levels.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard Faces Protests - Adam Carr

Negative public opinion polls also appear to be linked to the growing number of embarrassing revelations undermining the credibility of the IPCC for using dubious non-peer reviewed findings.

Disillusionment in the greenhouse gas theory of climate change is increasing among independent non-government funded scientists. Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas and comprises just 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. Environmentalists and leaders of some the world’s wealthiest nations championed the greenhouse gas theory as a promising vehicle for cap and trade green taxes.

No Discernible Human Influence on Climate

Aussie climate skeptics such as Malcolm Roberts, have been at the forefront of promoting science that discredits the IPCC claims. Roberts published his own lucid rebuttal of the man-made global warming theory with, ‘Two Dead Elephants in Parliament.’

Roberts drew attention to the IPCC’s Table 2.11 (2007) that reveals by the IPCC’s own admission, it has ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80 percent of all factors impacting climate.

In their Third Report the IPCC claimed that as CO2 levels increased then global temperatures would increase. However, since 1998, despite unending rises in atmospheric CO2, global temperatures have fallen.

On such evidence, along with other arguments, the protesters say there is no compelling reason to show human emissions of carbon dioxide is causing any climate change. Thus the imposition of climate taxes is both scientifically unjustified and impacts negatively on economic freedom.

Wide Cross Section of Society Against the New Tax

Organizers claim these are gatherings of Australian citizens with a peaceful demonstration message. There are no projected figures of the expected turnout but interest has been considerable according to the Consumers and Taxpayers Association. They say they had over 100,000 hits on their website within the two weeks leading up to the rally.

The cities involved in the ‘No Carbon Tax’ protest are Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. The six rallies are expected to comprise many representatives of diverse groups including “Young Australians, Working Families, Students, Workers, Small Business Owners and Senior Citizens.”

Source: John O’ Sullivan

You can read my Co2 Insanity take on this here.


Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, United Nations

Climate Disruption is Really Bank Account Disruption

Well now, here’s some real CO2 Insanity! Think about how the warmers have been and are constantly harping about carbon taxes and carbon trading as a method to eliminate global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or what may be the new name I’m coining – “Bank Account Disruption.”

Remember all the various predictions floating around the internet on how much the temperature will rise in the future? From the EPA’s website we get this bit of nonsense from their take on the 2007 IPCC Report.

  • The average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 2 to 11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8-4.0°C) (see Figure 1). The average rate of warming over each inhabited continent is very likely to be at least twice as large as that experienced during the 20th century.

You can see in the figure below a graph showing the extremely wide range of possibilities predicted by the IPCC. From my point of view they may have done better using a dartboard. I mean with a range like that you just about can’t miss.

The predicted cost of just lowering the Earth’s temperature one lousy degree makes Obama’s proposed 2010 budget of $3.63 trillion look rather miserly. So how much is it? Well according to this article at World Net Daily it will cost only a ‘mere’ $700 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by one degree. No that’s not a misprint it’s $700,000,000,000,000 dollars. See why I call it real CO2 Insanity? That’s 7 times the world’s gross production, or we don’t even make enough money to pay for it.

Take the IPCC’s worst high temperature projection of 6.4 degrees centigrade and you have a ‘paltry’ $4,480 trillion dollars. Mind you, we don’t even have the $700 trillion for 1 degree, yet the warmers, in a fit of CO2 Insanity, keep trying to screw us taxpayers out of every penny they can by promoting preposterous claims, use of scare-tactics and plain old brainwashing. Even the EPA has problems with it, though with what goes on with them these days, this is the last thing I’d ever expect to hear.

Citing a study by the EPA’s Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, “EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] ‘absurd,’ affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing ‘at least a decade or longer’ of permit delays, ‘slowing’ construction nationwide for years, ‘introducing burdens that are administratively ‘infeasible,’ ‘overwhelming,’ that will ‘adversely affect national economic development,’ while impacting sources ‘not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'”

So, if this is all true (and you just read it from the horse’s mouth above) then why the big push to get rid of coal and oil? Why no drilling? Why do we need ill-advised legislation like California’s global warming law AB32 that will (by the EPA’s own admission) do nothing to save the climate, but will harm California’s economy via raising the cost of just about everything? Why are we wasting money on bird-chopping wind turbines that only make a profit when heavily subsidized? Talk about the big con, this is the ultimate! I mean even Bernie Madoff in his wildest dreams ever thought he’d scam $700 trillion dollars out of anyone!

No this is more CO2 Insanity and it’s proof that the goal isn’t to save the planet from global warming at all, but to rip off as much money as possible from the unsuspecting public, many who genuflect at the altar of the Church of Global Warming and buy into what’s become the globe’s latest religion.

Next time you hear Al Gore at his podium, moaning we’re all going to die from climate disruption, remember to check your wallet to make sure it’s not being disrupted and check your bank account, too. After you’re sure your wallet hasn’t been picked, suggest to Al that he cash the $700 trillion check from Zimbabwe to cover it.

You can read more about it at the source below.

Source: World Net Daily


Filed under AB32 California, California, Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, EPA, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations