Viv Forbes gets some global warming; Al Gore gets duped

Ever since Viv Forbes of Carbon Sense moved out to Rosewood, he has been complaining every winter about needing a bit of that new fangled global warming.

Apparently the Bureau of Meteorology has listened to him and decided to do something about it by revising and adjusting the records to make it warmer.  He reports:

We live at Rosevale, just over the hills from the Amberley air base. We have just been subjected to retrospective global warming by the keepers of the Amberley temperature record - Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. 

Until 2012, our official temperature records showed we had been in a cooling trend since records started in 1941. In 2012, BOM “adjusted” the original records and, lo, now we are suffering a global warming trend. 

More here: 

I’ve been telling him for years that he needs to keep up the complaints; a squeaky wheel gets the most grease.  Now he can turn down that electric blanket.

Gore duped

Clive Palmer, founder of the Palmer United Party, caused a fair bit of consternation among the Liberals and the population at large by announcing that he would be releasing his policy on carbon tax repeal with Al Gore at a press conference. (Aussies love parties with someone’s name attached to them, something believed to have been imported from the Peronists in Argentina.)

PUP went into the election with a policy of repealing the carbon tax, but Palmer’s policies change pretty much on whim.  Clive turned up at parliament house for a week in his own Rolls Royce and other expensive cars claiming to be saving taxpayers money.  The following week, he was in a chauffeur driven commonwealth car, which he claimed, was because of his duty to keep Australians employed.

There was good reason to think that the presence of Gore during the announcement meant that Palmer had had another change of heart and would oppose abolition of the tax.

Instead we witnessed the bizarre spectacle of the world’s greatest climate frantic and advocate of punishing energy consumers, Al Gore standing beside a mining billionaire who was announcing that his party would be voting to abolish the carbon tax. 

The question on everybody’s lips is, did he sell out or was he rolled?

Gore charges quite substantial appearance fees and his presence may have cost Clive a pretty penny.  His Chinese partners should keep an eye on those accounts that he can access for $250,000 withdrawals.

The answer is probably neither, rather the two of them got together to do a dirty deal whereby Clive was given an indulgence on axing the carbon tax, which costs him $6 million per year on his nickel refinery alone, as well as blocking Abbott’s idiotic Alternative action plan, in exchange for retaining the renewable energy target and the Bob Brown Bank or Clean Energy Finance Corporation, both of which benefit Gore. 

The CEFC is there to help finance crony capitalists and rent seekers in the green energy field to milk the RET by building costly wind and solar farms which survive by selling expensive and unreliable energy at a higher price to consumers under a mandated arrangement from the government.

Andrew Bolt reports:

Gore is a co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, which manages and advises on green investments of the kind Gore’s climate scaremongering helps whip up. 

Among the businesses it “participates” in is Australia’s $1 trillion Investor Group on Climate Change, which comprises Goldman Sachs and many of our bigger super funds.  Those funds invest big in renewable energy and are scared the Government will soon slash or scrap the Renewable Energy Target, which forces electricity suppliers to use more expensive wind and solar power. 

IGCC has protested that “changes to the RET scheme could undermine the value returns on investments made to date” and “we do not favour any changes”.

This entire arrangement is an agreement between two carpet baggers, one selling green investments on the pretext of a scare campaign that he has championed, and another who is in the position to benefit from the repeal of a tax that if Gore was even moderately honest, he would do everything possible to retain.

The press conference says a lot about both parties, none of it complimentary.

Food Free Fridays Coming?

Cartoon: By Jerry Holbert  

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by The Carbon Sense Coalition. 
 

Once again, the high priests of the UN/IPCC have forecast world starvation unless we mend our wicked ways. 



According to them, unless we curb our use of oil, gas, coal and meat, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will soar, the globe will heat up, and food production will plummet. 



This is just a rerun of their previous failed forecasts based on academic theories and computer models. 



They should have asked practical nurserymen, farmers and meteorologists. 



Nurserymen would tell them that if you pump carbon dioxide into a greenhouse the plants grow faster, bigger, more drought-tolerant and more heat-tolerant. Therefore more carbon dioxide will produce more food. 



See this Time-Lapse video showing effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth: 


Farmers would tell them that plants grow faster in the warmth of spring and summer and slower in winter. Any warming by carbon dioxide would tend to warm the higher latitudes so the snow line will shift, thus creating more arable land. It would also tend to produce warmer nights, thus reducing frost damage to crops and opening more land to frost-sensitive crops. 



Meteorologists would tell them that if global temperatures increase, evaporation from the vast oceans must also increase. What goes up with more evaporation must come down as more rain or snow. While some areas may become drier, a warmer world is on average a wetter world, producing more food. 



There is also no evidence that extra carbon dioxide and warmth will make weather more erratic – in fact the reverse should occur as the global temperature gradient, which drives winds, and storms will be reduced with more warming at the poles. 



Finally, there is no evidence that their climate scares will occur “much earlier than expected”. With global temperatures flat for 17 years, how can warming occur faster than in their previous failed forecasts? 



There is no rational basis for claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will add to world starvation – history and science tell us that it would produce a productive green and bountiful world. It is global cooling we have to fear. 


Image: By Steve hunter

 On the other hand, there is no doubt that foolish climate POLICIES will produce less food. Policies on ethanol, biomass, carbon-credit forestry and the Kyoto bans on regrowth control, either directly consume food, or reduce the land available for food production. 

Encouraging and protecting trees at the expense of grasslands is threatening the production of low-cost food from marginal grazing lands and water restrictions are driving irrigators out of business. 

And to top it off, their taxes and regulatory wars on carbon energy will push marginal farmers and fishermen out of production. The world may indeed see hungry years, but carbon dioxide will not be the cause. 



Already they advocate “Meat-free Mondays”. Their anti-food anti-carbon policies will soon result in “Food-free Fridays”. 




If you would like to read more see: 



The Beneficial Effects of Global Warming for the Biosphere: 


Blaming mankind for floods: 


The Food production lies of the IPCC: 


Alarmists admit that they exaggerate damage caused by climate change. It’s OK to lie: 

Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought: 


Grass, Trees, Climate and Food: 


The Twilight of Abundance with the Cold Sun?


If you would like to comment on this article: 


Coal not Candles

By Viv Forbes, Chairman, 

The Carbon Sense Coalition. 

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that coal not candles should be the symbol of Earth Hour.

It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion and open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh.

Much of the third world still suffers choking fumes and smog because they do not have clean electric power and burn wood, cardboard, unwashed coal, rubber and cow dung for home heat.



It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters.



It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps.



It was coal that produced the steel that replaced shingles on the roof, timber props in the mines, wooden fence posts on the farms and the bark on the old bark hut.



In Australia today, coal provides at least 75% of our lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, rail transport and steel. Without it, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure.



Coal is fossil sunshine as clean as the green plants it came from, and less damaging to the environment than its green energy alternatives.



Earth Hour candles are green tokenism for rich applause-seekers and nostalgic dreamers.



We should spend Earth Hour saluting the real people who produce the coal on which most people on earth depend.



EPA wants environmental impact statements on water for droughted cattle

With drought biting hard in much of Queensland and NSW, many farmers are attempting to improve water distribution on their properties in order to give starving stock access to larger areas of grazing.  While this is happening, bureaucrats in the capital cities are fretting over whether this will threaten the environment: 

As the government steps up its drought relief, there's concern a move by the federal environment department might actually make it harder for graziers to roll out emergency water infrastructure. 

Millions of dollars have already been spent installing bores, pipes and troughs to keep starving stock alive and yesterday's federal package increased the government's contribution from half to 75 per cent. 

Yet, the federal environment department is currently investigating whether the 'proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points' represents a threat to the environment. 

It's a move that's incensed graziers and land managers who are questioning the department's decision to consider a nomination under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act. 

Northern Gulf NRM chief executive officer Grant Fawcett- based in Georgetown, about 400 kilometres west of Cairns - says getting the balance between economic and environmental benefits should be left to land managers. … 

… But graziers such as former Cattle Council president Greg Brown, who've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving waters on his property, 'Meadowbank', says it shows federal bureaucrats are out of touch and he hopes the review is ignored. 

"I think it's a rather strange sort of assertion myself. I would have thought that additional water in country would actually enhance the survival of wildlife and biodiversity." 

"Obviously people are entitled to establish watering points on their own property... it's entirely up to you with regard to putting watering points around the place and I have some doubts as to whether they're going to be consulting the federal department of environment.” …

The greatest single asset of most farmers and graziers is their land, which is what they rely on to provide the majority, if not all of their income.  They would be cutting their own throats economically were they to damage its productivity by carrying out actions with poor environmental outcomes.

They also understand the land and its workings far better than the average big city bureaucrat even though they don’t work for a government department and are not trained to apply theoretical ideas to hypothetical situations using self-righteousness as a guide.

Extreme cold blamed on global warming

Image: Courtesy, Breitbardt

We are becoming accustomed to being berated by warming frantics over any uncomfortable weather event being the result of ‘man made climate change’, global warming, or whatever term is deemed appropriate these days.  These include droughts, floods, bushfires, and now, cold winters.

Recently a group of grandstanding warmists attempting to revisit Mawson’s 1911 expedition inadvertently revised Shackleton’s ‘Endurance’ trip by getting trapped in sea ice.  One of the explanations offered was that because of global warming the excessive melting of Antarctic ice had freshened the seawater to the point where it froze into sea ice at a higher temperature.

We have since been offered a similar sounding explanation for the lull in temperature rise over the past seventeen years.  Apparently GW has caused stronger trade winds, which have turned the oceans over, burying the warm water underneath and bringing cooler water to the surface.

Now Charlie Rose of CBS is claiming that global warming has caused the record low temperatures in North America:

… Guest Michio Kaku, a physics professor from New York City College--not a climatologist, but a physicist--claimed that the "wacky weather" could get "even wackier" and its all because of global warming. "What we're seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. We think it's because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting," professor Kaku said. 

"That excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air... So that's the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions," the prof explained. 

This was all because of global warming, Rose insisted. …

The excuses are getting sillier and are running out.

Coalition of eco-loons and anti-market fanatics

Daniel Hannan presents another glaring example of how both incarnations of the modern authoritarian left combine to screw things up in the name of the environment and consumer protection:
 

 Eco-loons and anti-market fanatics tend to be natural allies in inflicting greater and more intrusive regulation on all of us in order to advance their own jaundiced view of the kind of society they would have us become.

Council global warming planning decisions suffer court setback

Local authorities in Australia have been moving increasingly towards becoming another arm of big government, micro managing local affairs.  One area they have entered with gusto is including hat tips to big eco in planning decisions.

Woe betide any resident with a tree threatening his house that is deemed to be ‘of significant biodiversity value’.  Old houses that have gone through a number of evolutions in the last century must not change in any renovation beyond some time in the past deemed appropriate by cultural censors, and must not have anything modern done with them.

The latest plaything of councils is to plan for global warming induced sea level changes with building restrictions on waterfront property.

A recent court decision may provide some relief: 

A NSW judgment has castigated a local council that permitted a couple to build a house on a beachfront plot, on condition they tore it down in 20 years assuming UN predictions of sea-level rise and coastal erosion come true. 

NSW Land and Environment Court senior commissioner Tim Moore struck down the condition, saying in his judgment that Great Lakes Council had held a "Damoclean sword" over Greg and Lesley Newton, who had sought to build on a vacant block at Jimmys Beach on the mid-north coast of NSW. 

The judgment has been hailed by a lobby group representing coastal home owners in the region, who are facing similar "time-limited consents" based on dire UN International Panel on Climate Change predictions of rising sea levels. 

It comes when, as revealed by The Australian, the NSW government, infuriated that some coastal councils are unquestioningly adopting the IPCC predictions and imposing often severe planning restrictions, is preparing to issue instructions for them to apply common sense.It is a victory for the deputy mayor of Great Lakes Council, Len Roberts, who led a minority of councillors against a majority headed by Mayor Jan McWilliams who voted to impose the time-limited consent on the Newtons. 

Commissioner Moore struck down Condition 7 in the development approval, which was limited to a period of 20 years, at which point the owners would have to hire a consultant to re-examine coastal hazards. Unless the council decided sea-level change and coastal erosion were not developing as predicted, the owners would have to abandon the house. …

Council climate change planning decisions are based on the precautionary principle in the wake of the sort of climate modeling that inspired a group of climate scientists to get caught in Antarctic sea ice that according to modeling, wasn’t supposed to be there, costing millions for their rescue.

While it is reasonable to prevent residential building under known flood levels, it is idiotic to base decisions on what are essentially unproven theories promulgated by the same sort of people who were predicting a CO2 based ice age back in the 70s.

Much of the issue of building approvals could be handled by the private sector. In order to get finance to put up a building, it is first necessary to make the banks feel secure by having insurance.  If the owner cannot convince any company to issue a policy on the construction, it simply will not be built unless the proposer is able to pay for it and take the risk of losing it.

The Environmental Multinationals have lost their Way.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The carbon Sense Coalition 

Many groups have much to lose as the theory that humans are driving dangerous and accelerating global warming is progressively exposed as science fiction.

Those in most danger are the multinational environmental empires and the politicians who have supported them.



Once upon a time the World Wildlife Fund was mainly about saving wildlife – now its pre-occupation seems to be how to destroy the coal industry in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life, and the additional carbon dioxide is known to be fuelling the green revolution which has caused increased growth of all green things. WWF is thus now anti-green.



Greenpeace also has forgotten the green bit and is now more interested in saddling us with a tax on carbon, the key element of all life.



And instead of working for refugees, Oxfam was prominent among the dozens of “charities” acting more like stop-work agitators at the climate grabfest in Warsaw. (Yes it was a grab-fest – most of the attendees were there hoping to grab a big heap of cash from a few western bunnies for “Climate Compensation”.)



See: Green groups walk out of UN climate talks


And how do Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club accept the massive environmental destruction caused by thousands of bird-killing bat-killing wind turbines with their spider-webs of roads and transmission lines? The wind mania will collapse as soon as its subsidies disappear. Who is then going to clean up their mess? Will we see volunteers from FOE dismantling derelict windmills and rehabilitating their access tracks and transmission lines and towers?



Solar Panels Frying Birds Along Major Migration Path:


Wind Turbines slaughter rare birds: 

 Image Source: 

And why should these economic vandals be assisted by tax concessions while they spend much of their time and energy locking-the-gate on activities that could generate tax revenue such as exploration, mining, grazing, land development, irrigation, fishing, tourism and forestry? Green extremists have lost sight of their once-worthy aims to now become forces of pointless obstruction and destruction of all human activities.



And why should the CSIRO be funded lavishly by tax payers while they waste billions trying to prop up failing climate theories, models and scares?



The ice caps have not melted, the oceans are not overheating, sea levels are just fluctuating, the polar bears are thriving and the Sahara is regaining vegetation. It is foxes and cats that are destroying native wildlife, not drilling for gas. And real human pollution of the oceans, rivers and atmosphere gets little attention while green dreamers in parliament are focussed on maintaining the carbon tax.

Cartoon: Steve Hunter  
(PS. Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas and Big Government have been quite stingy lately with grants to Carbon Sense so Steve has not been paid. Send us some subscriptions or we will both starve.)



All manias unravel, and the climate mania has started down this road. Already supporters are jumping ship as the reaction accelerates.



Politicians too have played a dangerous game with energy supplies.



The icy tentacles of yet another cold winter are once again sneaking down from the ice-covered Arctic and causing shivers on the northern plainsof Europe and America.



Sometime soon, on a still winter night in Northern Europe, snow will drift down silently, covering the German solar panels with a cold white blanket, and quietly surrounding the motionless British wind turbines like skirmishers ahead of the invading vandals. Green power will fail, the lights will flicker, the heaters will go cold, and some people may start to recognise that reliable heat, light and power from coal, oil, gas and nuclear is humanity’s greatest asset after all.



Next morning, the BBC will report the record high temperature reached at Marble Bar in summertime Australia.



But later in the day, awkward questions will be asked in Parliament. 



And, at the next election, heads will roll.

The Gore effect rules

Cartoon: By Glenn McCoy 

The “Gore effect” is an amusing phenomenon (at least to climate rationalists), which seems to bring record cold weather, sleet, ice, hail, and extreme discomfort to GW frantics during events where Al Gore is present, or are called to discuss ‘dangerous’ global warming.  ‘Respectable’ or government-financed scientists dismiss it as just a hell of a lot of unfortunate coincidences.

Climate Depot has a list of events affected by it here. 

Now the weather is once again taking the piss during a conference in California by the American Geophysical Union.  The event during which many aspects of Global warming were discussed, was marred by records being smashed for low temperatures: 

… In a classic case of the Gore Effect, these global warming presentations occurred in a month seeing record cold in the city of San Francisco. Temperatures in San José fell to a record-shattering 30 degrees Fahrenheit--so low that it has caused deaths by hypothermia in the area. The cold also caused serious issues with black ice on roads, not something with which the usual Bay Area driver must contend. The cold weather was not limited to the Bay Area, however. Over 2,000 temperature records were shattered nationwide. 

The scientific community has faced increased problems in explaining the slowing of the global warming trend in the past several years when their numbers appeared to have predicted a much steadier increase. Even reports by the IPCC--a group present at the AGU conference--demonstrate that the globe failed to reach the temperatures expected due to carbon dioxide emissions this year, as well as how the benefits of an increase in plant life and crops from a steadying warming trend would outweigh the harm of climate change. Some studies have even speculated that humans have a much smaller impact on climate change than previously believed. 

The reality of such cold temperatures amid calls of potential disturbances thanks to record heat are certainly not ideal for climate scientists. However, what these record cold temperatures mean for climate change theorists is yet to be seen. Given that they occurred during this year's AGU meeting, we might expect a study by the fall meeting in 2014 that attempts to explain this precipitous temperature drop in the context of larger-scale climate change. …

The Climate See-saw.

Cartoon: by Michael Ramirez
By Viv Forbes, Chairmam,
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Anyone who looks carefully at radiation science and the thermodynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will come to the conclusion that carbon dioxide alone cannot cause a global warming crisis. Even sensible warmists know this. There is a warming effect, but it is tiny and getting smaller as carbon dioxide increases.



So warmists invoke “positive feedbacks” or multipliers, which they say will tip earth into runaway global warming.

Their theory is that an initial small warming will increase evaporation of water from the oceans and methane from the tundra. These two “greenhouse gases” will then cause more atmospheric warming, progressively expelling more carbon dioxide from the warming oceans. “Oceans will boil” claimed warmist leader James Hansen. They also claim that after a postulated “tipping point”, Earth will never recover its balmy equilibrium.



However, they ignore substantial negative feedbacks that act to moderate any tendency to excessive global warming. For example, evaporation cools water bodies and carries surface heat into the upper atmosphere where it dissipates to space. Extra evaporation also produces more clouds that reflect heat and cool the surface. Also methane oxidises and extra plant growth absorbs more solar energy, water vapour and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.



Moreover, the long history of the Earth reveals periods when temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher than today but life flourished and Earth always returned to cooler times – sometimes an ice age. Earth’s climate oscillates like a see-saw, with periodic changes in cycles in the sun and the solar system keeping the see-saw slowly oscillating.



There is no evidence supporting the theory of a global warming tipping point.



Today we live in a comfortably warm climate cycle but in the grand climate cycles, the barren hungry ice is always waiting its turn. Global cooling is a far greater danger to life on Earth than global warming.



Every human alive today is descended from a long line of smart and adaptable ancestors. Those who stay smart and adaptable will survive future see-saws of the climate.



For those who would like to read more: 

James Hansen claims oceans will boil: 


Here’s some alarming forecasts, bravely also specifying dates



But a well-known Australian global warmist rejects the tipping point scares:



Climate Forcings and Feedbacks. It is a well buffered and balanced system:


Quiet sun, and increasing ice:


Even the BBC feels the chill:

Finally, modern man (and woman) practicing how to cope with the ice:

IPC’s Roscam slams Abbott’s direct action plan

Image; Baloo cartoons

Curiously, in this day and age of big government economic planning, Australia’s major parties are on a bit of a fetish for what they refer to as market based solutions on climate change.  Normally this would not be that much of a problem if any of them had the slightest concept of what a free market is, but that is not the case.

Labor and the Greens believe that a carbon tax is ‘market based’ in that it increases the price of electricity and other forms of energy, along with products made with it.  Reductions in CO2 are made by forcing all but the wealthy to cut back on their comforts and shutting down industry.  This in turn creates more poor people who have to cut back on their energy usage.

The Liberals and Nationals on the other hand are pro business and believe that subsidies and make work schemes are ‘market based’ according to Environment Minister Greg Hunt. Reductions in CO2 are made by using taxpayer money to subsidise farmers to increase soil carbon, householders to install solar, and establish a 15,000 strong ‘Green Army’ to plant trees. 

That rumbling sound is Hayek spinning in his grave.

John Roscam, who heads up the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has come out swinging on the issue of Abbott’s direct action plan: 

''I don't think we should have direct action because the Coalition hasn't explained what, if any, changes to the world's temperature it will provide,'' said Mr Roskam, who is the executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs. 

Asked whether Mr Abbott's earlier position on the science of climate change - namely, as he notoriously declared in 2009, that it was ''absolute crap'' - suited the PM better than direct action, Mr Roskam agreed. 

''Yes, and isn't it interesting how climate change gets people to say things they don't really believe? I've yet to be convinced that Tony Abbott is doing any of this for anything other than political purposes. I think he would be much better off, as any politician would, telling us what he genuinely believed.'' 

Mr Roskam makes no bones of his scepticism over human-induced climate change, and has campaigned through the IPA against any form of climate action.

Neither side is really into anything market based but rather, are pursuing social engineering schemes based on manipulating market mechanisms in order to skew the economy in a direction that they consider to be socially desirable. 

It is doubtful that the Liberals actually believe that this plan is going to achieve anything; they are not that stupid and in any case the aim is to achieve a one fifth reduction of the already miniscule proportion of CO2 emissions produced here, which is pointless.  Their real belief is that it is politically expedient to be seen to have some sort of inferred belief in human induced global warming and a need to be thought of as having an intent to be seen to do something about it.  

The Consensus Fractures, and it’s now all about Money and Power.

By, Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition 

The Global Warming Scare started when some rich western elites in their deep green bunkers saw it as a way of curbing what they saw as the wasteful and unsustainable life-style of western consumer society (that is, those other people). If they managed this “crisis” properly, they could make great strides in their long-held goals of controlling national and local governments, destroying private property and introducing an unelected elite with access to a world system of taxation and redistribution.



But, voters, consumers and scientists are destroying this green dream:


•                The 97% science consensus is busted. A survey of American Meteorological Society members found that “48% either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause”.

•                A recent Australian election was won decisively by Tony Abbott on the clear promise to repeal the carbon tax.

•                Japan decided their emission targets were unsustainable and unilaterally increased them. Japan has also decided they would not sign any new Kyoto targets.

•                Canada upset the Warsaw climate claimants by refusing to support a massive climate compensation fund. Canada also withdrew from further Kyoto liabilities.

•                The US admitted there was no chance that their Senate would agree to fund “compensation” for past emissions.

•                UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, who once boasted that he led the greenest ever government, made a huge U-turn by ordering aides to “get rid of all the green crap” which is pushing up energy costs for consumers.

•                Carbon trading, once seen as a burgeoning industry, is evaporating in Europe with at least 10 banks in London alone scaling back or closing their trading desks.

•                Germany, the heart of green Europe, has signalled it will slash the green energy subsidies and is proceeding to open 10 new coal fired power stations.

•                Russia, having milked the gullible west for carbon credits for closing the obsolete Soviet era industrial infrastructure, is no longer interested in emissions targets.

•                Poland sacked its minister in charge of the Warsaw climate gabfest, and intends to push ahead as quickly as possible on developing shale gas resources.

•                China led a block of 132 nations in a walkout from the Warsaw conference over "loss and damage” an ambit claim that developed nations should be legally liable for compensation when natural disasters strike developing poor nations. No one cared much.

•                Even the BBC was moved to comment that the sun’s behaviour may presage another cooling era.

•                Finally, Al Gore has sold most of his green investments because they were all losing money.


The climate scare is no longer about the realities of the climate, but about money – continuing subsidies for green energy, more funds for climate research and conferences, international compensation for natural disasters, the soaring costs of electricity, and the collapse of carbon trading. 

The community savings being spent or demanded by governments on the climate industry is staggering –

1.              EU plans to spend €180 billion domestically plus €15 billion in overseas climate aid in the next 6 years.

2.              USA has spent $6 billion overseas on “climate finance” over the last 2 years and more is committed.

3.              USA has spent $107 billion domestically on climate change since 2003 and spending is now running at about $9 billion per year.

4.              Africa is claiming $15 billion by 2020 to adapt infrastructure to cope with global warming.

5.              “Poor” countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa are heading a claimant coalition of 190 nations demanding climate-aid guilt money of $100 billion per year.

6.              The Australian federal government has no idea how much is being spent in dozens of un-coordinated federal, state and local government climate programs, overseas climate aid and spending on overseas carbon credits but a figure of $20 billion has been mentioned.

7.              And all over the western world, consumers are being impoverished by soaring electricity charges, as green energy costs get passed on.


All we have to show for this spending are massive computers producing worthless forecasts, thousands of wind and solar plants producing trickle-power intermittently, millions of green jobs producing propaganda, many overseas trips for the climate bureaucracy and not much else.



Imagine if this deluge of money had been spent on flood-proof railways, roads and bridges, cyclone-proof power supplies, drought-proof water supplies, fire-fighting equipment, community shelters for fires, floods and cyclones, emergency helicopters and helipads and so on.

Instead, this money has been frittered away so that all western governments are in now financial distress, and soon will be unable to help even their own people.



At the same time, the same people behind the climate scare are manning Shut-the-gate movements all over the western world. Their prime target has been exploration for oil, coal, shale gas, coal seam gas and uranium, but they have also denied access to vast tracts on land and sea for exploration, mining, farming, forestry, fishing, water supply, railways, ports and pipelines.



Not since the days of the Aztecs has a priesthood inflicted such lethal sacrifice on its own people. They have vastly increased the costs to be borne by taxpayers and consumers, while at the same time crippling those industries that are the primary generators of real wealth.

Maybe some future historian will write a massive tome titled “The Decline and Fall of Western Civilisation – how a green-robed priesthood sapped a vibrant society of its desire and ability to feed and defend itself”.