Australian Carbon Tax Protests

AKA: The great carbon tax swindle!

Something very strange is happening on our streets here in Australia. But first, let’s go back in time, over 20 years back, to 1990.

More TaxMaggie Thatcher was in charge of my old country, England. She introduced a ridiculous tax, called the Poll Tax. People took to the streets to protest against this tax which, ultimately, led to its demise.

Back now to 2011, this time in my new country, Australia. Julia Gillard is in charge, and she wants to introduce a ridiculous tax called the carbon tax. And the people have taken to the streets to protest FOR the tax!

Can you imagine?

“We want more tax! We want more tax! We want more tax!”

No, I’m not making it up! But unfortunately, the Australian Network News article about this has now been taken down, so I can no longer link to it. Trust me, it happened.

In some ways I can’t blame them, we have had a lot of strange weather here in Australia lately. Maybe that is proof enough for them that climate change exists, but surely the real debate is what causes it?


It is hugely coincidental that I have chosen today to write this post, because today, apparently, is hug a climate scientist day.

  • About 15 years ago, I remember watching a documentary in which scientists discovered that the Gulfstream was slowing down/reversing or something and that this would result in the UK and Europe becoming as cold and icy as Greenland. This would tilt the balance of the world so badly that a critical mass would be reached and we would rapidly enter into an ice age.
  • That argument disappeared when scientists seemed to change their minds and started talking about “global warming”.
  • Today, scientists refer to it as “climate change”. Good plan! That way, they can’t get it wrong. Of course there is climate change! The climate is always changing.

If I could hug one scientist, I’d choose Professor Tim Flannery. In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems ….”

Great tip! Thanks for that mate. I think you need a hug.

His reward for getting it so wrong? Today he is part-time (at $180,000 a year) chairman of the Government’s new Climate Commission. Read more about his weather predictions here.

Yes, it is worrying, isn’t it?

An Inconvenient Truth

There are a couple of films about global warming that I want to talk about. The first is Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth“. This is the film that made him so much money, he could buy a $9 million house! You can read about that here.

Nice pad huh? I bet that doesn’t use too much carbon!

His film grossed over $23 million, but it was full of lots of untruths. That’s why he lost his court case in the UK. Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors which he said were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. You can read about that here.

The reality about the Earth’s climate

It is an indisputable fact that the world’s climate is changing. I’m happy to agree with anyone that climate change is a reality. But what is in dispute is why?

I think it’s just the natural rhythm of the Earth and the Sun with all its hotspots. We didn’t cause ice age, did we? We weren’t here. And we are not causing what’s happening now and any reduction in our carbon emissions is all a complete waste of time. The Earth will do what the Earth will do and there is nothing we can do about it.

But don’t take my word for it…..

The Great Global Warming Swindle

This is the other film about global warming that I want to talk about. This is the one that didn’t lose a court case or earn $23 million at the box office. This one is available for free on YouTube. This one isn’t promoted by Al Gore zipping from state to state or country to country in a private jet.

For any of you who haven’t seen it, this one IS the truth. I first saw it about four or five years ago, before I left England. I’m not sure if it has ever aired here in Australia. It’s easily the longest video I’ve ever posted, but it is well worth the time invested. If you don’t have time now, come back later. It’s too important a documentary to just skip it.

So grab a cup of tea, or better still, a tinnie from the fridge and watch it. Then decide whether the carbon tax is a good idea for Australia or whether you are being duped.

Visa Assessment Service
{ 54 comments… add one }
  • John Vance October 16, 2013, 6:05 pm |

    Bozo? You are a man of a few words. Unfortunately dey make no sense.
    Try this:
    Now this man is different. They also tried to kill him it seems….Mr Farage to you…

    • BobinOz October 17, 2013, 12:01 am |

      Both these blokes are batting on the same side as far as I can see, so they each get thumbs up from me. I’m reminded of another guy I like, it’s not climate change this one, but the debt crisis put into perspective by Mr Bloom…

  • Bozo October 16, 2013, 5:51 pm |

    Three words. Lord Christopher monckton

  • Warwick Wakefield February 2, 2013, 10:30 am |

    Here’s another look at some world-class scientists who rubbish the global warming scare.
    Do these people seem to be the “flat earthers” that the greens, and the ABC and Fairfax keep telling us are the only dissenters from the global warming alarm?

    Dr. Philip Lloyd
    Former professor at University of Witwatersrand,
    established a course in environmental chemical engineering.

    Currently serves as an honorary research fellow with the Energy Research Centre at the University of CapeTown.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven’t a clue about the forces driving our climate past. I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”


    Frederick Wolf
    Professor of physics, Keene State College in New Hampshire

    “Several things have contributed to my skepticism about global warming being due to human causes. We all know that the atmosphere is a very complicated system. Also, after studying climate, I am aware that there are cycles of warm and cold periods of varying lengths which are still not completely understood. I am impressed by the number of scientific colleagues who are naturally sceptical about the conclusion of human induced warming.”

    David Packham
    Former principal research scientist with CSIRO
    Senior research fellow, climate group at Monash University

    “I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question. This lack of comfort comes from many directions: A lack of actual measurements for terrestrial radiation and the use of deemed values for particulate radiation absorption; The failure to consider the role of particulates from biomatter burning; The lack of critical thought and total acceptance of the global warming models as conclusive evidence; The lack of transparency and obscuration of the critical weaknesses in the GCMs. Along with these discomforts goes an observation that research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse data gathering.

    There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The effect of the group think is creating a corporate data gathering mind set amongst our young researchers that I think is dangerous.”


    • John Vance February 4, 2013, 3:06 pm |

      Warwick, the cosmic radiation theory on cloud creation, I don’t quite get. For clouds to form there seems to be a need for a nucleus. But couldn’t that nucleus be any particle at higher altitudes, and depending on the type on nucleus, form at different temperatures and heights?

      • Warwick Wakefield February 15, 2013, 9:58 pm |

        John, I don’t understand all the intricacies of the scientific arguments, for and against. And furthermore, when you attempt to argue the scientific details with people like Kirri you have already lost, for they have received much greater scientific training.

        Where you can argue convincingly is in the matter of honesty. If the alarmists were so certain of their case, they wouldn’t have to lie, would they?

        But they have often stated that only a handful of non-scientists dispute the matter, and that is readily shown to be a huge lie; hundreds and hundreds of top scientists from the world’s leading scientific institutions reject the theory out of hand. A few minutes on google will show that.

        And there is the matter of Tim Flannery. He made outrageous predictions about the drought being the new normal. He has been shown to be nothing but a charlatan scare monger. And still the warming alarmists support him. If they were to turn on him and say he had made predictions way outside his knowledge, in a totally unscientific manner, they would gain a bit of integrity. Their refusal to denounce him shows they are as dishonest and as corruptly unscientific as he is. You don’t need a science degree to see this; a bit of clear thinking reveals it.

  • Warwick Wakefield February 1, 2013, 7:51 pm |

    Hi Bob,

    you run a very open website. A mixture of plain common sense and a willingness to discover what might be difficult facts.


    • BobinOz February 3, 2013, 9:29 pm |

      Thanks Warwick, I always appreciate a compliment 🙂


  • John Vance February 1, 2013, 5:37 pm |

    PS BobinOZ is not an english connection, rather he is Australian. He’s got the papers to prove it….

    • BobinOz February 3, 2013, 9:27 pm |

      Ha ha, thanks for clearing that up John. Now, where did I put those papers…

      • John Vance February 3, 2013, 10:38 pm |

        You dont recognise an compliment when you get it from me it seems….(grin!)

        • BobinOz February 4, 2013, 4:08 pm |

          Just call me Robbo 🙂

  • John Vance February 1, 2013, 4:59 pm |

    I once worked with Peter Cundall, the gardening man. In a factory where he was the union leader. With threats that I should join, and me, on a lower than apprentice wage, have hated unions ever since.
    Then he got a Churchill fellowship, for some reason, and he joined the ABC. Jane Edmunsen who I met, and told of my knowing Peter, asked me why HE got the job at the ABC in Tassie and Australia as head of the program. When I mentioned union connections, it all fell into place. She had been wondering about this for some time. The ABC is infested with them. WWF Greenpeace and many other English connections are creating this worldwide problem. You should also see if you can score a copy of “the greenhouse trap” by John L. Daly, from Ebay. To think I lived close to him in Tassie…His website Unfortunately deceased: he knew about the deceptions before anyone else did..

  • Warwick Wakefield February 1, 2013, 4:47 pm |

    John Vance,
    Hi, thanks for posting the link to the book that refers to the IPCC as The Delinquent Teenager. Isn’t it good? Isn’t the IPCC a compromised outfit?

    John, a thing that amazes me is that here in Australia the ABC and Fairfax media claim to practice investigative journalism, but when it comes to the press releases from Greenpeace, the WWF, and the IPCC they simply accept what they’re told, like gullible schoolgirls.

    Do you think that the highly paid journos at the ABC and Fairfax are really unaware of the huge amount of first rate scientific dissent from the warmist creed?
    Or do they simply pretend it doesn’t exist, because they’ve hitched their wagon to the Green Creed, and they won’t allow themselves even to think heretical thoughts?

    I’m inclined to think that they’ve got themselves a green religion, with a set of dogma, and they won’t allow themselves even to consider the possibility that it might be wrong.

    The parallel situation that springs to mind is the refusal of Communists and their fellow travellers to appreciate the monstrosity of the Soviet Union, with it’s huge purges and executions and sentencing of something like ten percent of it’s population to a horrible death in the camps in the Arctic Circle.
    All the information was available in the fifties but still huge numbers of Australian trade unionists and intellectuals kept their faith in “the one country that has nationalized the means of production.”

    If ever there were a Green government in Australia it would be much more cruel and despotic than the show in North Korea; for the North Koreans are simply siding with the “Scientifically established principle of historical change, the class conflict, as revealed by Karl Marx.” The Greens are “saving the earth.” They have already shown that they believe it will probably be necessary to destroy humankind in order to “save the earth.” A government like that would have no qualms about imprisoning, starving, abusing and murdering millions. If they had a political leader like Saint Suzuki they would stop at nothing.

  • John Vance February 1, 2013, 4:12 pm |

    Mr Wakefield, thanks for writing in. There is a situation in Holland at the present moment with the European Union, called the “Hotel California” problem, where once they joined the organisation ,they can never leave. I wonder if the United Nations may be the same sort of problem for Australia. We are in the grip of a UN Agenda 21 declaration, and no one asked us. Look it up. Its hugely dangerous, involving the environment and other issues that look like ruling our nation…instead of our leaders.

  • Warwick Wakefield February 1, 2013, 2:54 pm |

    One often hears it said, “The science states that humankind, through the release of carbon, is making the world uninhabitable.”

    Or you hear it said, “When it comes to global warming, why don’t you listen to the scientists?”

    These statements could only be made by someone who is either disgustingly ignorant, or dishonest, or who embodies a repellent mixture of ignorance and dishonesty.

    “Hang on,” you might say, “isn’t that carrying things a bit far? Isn’t that employing a bit of overblown rhetoric?”
    Not at all. Let’s look at two aspects of the statement.

    The first aspect is the statement that “The Science” states that humankind is making the earth uninhabitable. This attempts to cast the controversy as a debate between science and anti-science, something similar to the debate between palaeontologists, who assert that the planet earth is many thousands of millions of years old, and pre-scientific or anti-scientific prophets who claim that it is no more than a few thousand years old.

    This is a disgusting misrepresentation. The debate over the existence of significant man-made global warming is a debate that is taking place within the field of the relevant sciences. Some scientists assert that we humans are warming the globe at an alarming rate while other scientists, and they are scientists of the first rank, claim that whatever effect we are having on global temperatures is so tiny that it cannot be detected against the background climate change that’s always going on as a result of natural variation.

    The global warming alarmists, especially those associated with outfits like Greenpeace and WWF, would have you believe it is a contest similar to that between scientific medicine and faith healing, science and anti-science. In fact it is a dispute similar to the many disputes that exist within the realms of science- based medicine. What is truly astonishing is that the global warming alarmists know that their opponents are first-rate scientists, but they continue to pretend that only fringe dwelling ratbags oppose their doomsaying.

    This is why it is disgusting that anyone should say, “Listen to the scientists,” or “The science should be heeded.”

    The second outrageous component of the opening statement is that “it is through the release of carbon that the world is being made uninhabitable.”

    But you might say, “Everyone knows that when we say “carbon” we’re just abbreviating the term “carbon dioxide;” nothing sinister about that.”

    But it is not just a matter of abbreviating; it is a matter of creating confusion. When we say “carbon,” the first thing that comes to mind is either black, dirty coal or black, dirty soot. Both of these things can easily be seen as “pollutants,” the kind of thing that fouls the air and begrimes buildings and trees and houses and gardens and used to make coal mining and industrial towns a form of purgatory.

    Naturally, everyone is opposed to this real pollution. And the global warming doomsayers want to harness this well-founded disgust in their crusade against the quite imaginary effects of carbon dioxide, which is totally invisible.

    They give themselves away whenever they run discussions on TV on the subject of global warming; they always show visuals of smoke coming out of the kind of smokestacks that were typical of long-gone eras of the industrial revolution. This is deception, spin, misrepresentation, duplicity ─ call it what you will ─ of the most obvious kind.

    But surely this is forgivable. After all, carbon dioxide is invisible, how else are you going to have a visual?

    That might have been the case fifty years ago, but today TV producers are able to create the most amazing synthetic and symbolic visuals; they have armies of technical people who do nothing else. If they show smoke coming from a smokestack it is only because they want us to think about carbon dioxide in the same way as we think about smoke and soot, as something dirty and unhealthy. And that’s why they talk about “carbon” instead of “carbon dioxide.”

    Another reason that the promoters of the scare campaign don’t want to use a more meaningful and honest visual is that the key factor, according to the theory, is the total amount, the concentration of CO2 in the whole world’s atmosphere. The people who make these calculations say that this concentration has risen from 280 parts per million, by volume, around the middle of the nineteenth century, to approximately 400 parts per million today.

    Now, what kind of visual would you use to represent that? Would you use a sports stadium with 10,000 people, and the previous CO2 concentration was 3 red persons and the present concentration is 4 red persons, amongst the10,000 ?

    But that would demonstrate that CO2 is microscopic element. It would make the viewers receptive to the idea, the truthful idea, that CO2 is very much a bit player; that water vapour, humidity, which we all know and understand, is responsible for more than 95% of the greenhouse effect. Then our viewers would be less likely to become frightened of carbon dioxide even, let alone filthy “carbon.”

    I’ve gathered together the names and qualifications of just a handful of the top flight scientists who reject out of hand the campaign to frighten us with the threat of catastrophic, man-made global warming. I will add to the list; there are hundreds and hundreds who have come out as opponents of this dreadful hysteria. But if you read through this list and glance at the statements that these people make about the doomsaying campaign, you will get a good idea of the low regard that huge numbers of the world’s best scientists have for this shrill alarmism.

    Some dissenters for today:
    V.Harold Lewis
    Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Lewis was so disgusted with Man-made global warming scare campaign that he resigned from the American Physical Society. Membership of this society, before its corruption, had been one of Lewis’s proudest identifications. Here is his letter of resignation.

    “(The Global Warming Scam) is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
    The money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
    The ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. This is not science; other forces are at work.
    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
    There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.”
    William Happer
    Professor of Physics at Princeton University

    “The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefitting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years.

    I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

    The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem. There are known connections and movements of people involved in government policy, scientific societies, and private industry, all with the common thread of influencing the outcome of a set of programs and investments underpinned by the supposed threat of global warming. ”


    • BobinOz February 1, 2013, 5:25 pm |

      I have never physically applauded a comment on my website before, but I have now.

      Thank you Warwick, so very well put.


  • John Vance January 31, 2013, 10:05 pm |

    Just stay as ignorant politically, as you are and you will do well in the scientific institute paid for by taxpayers.
    You don’t need to be scientist, you have to be a yes (wo)man…
    You listen to propaganda to discredit the Monckton. He is certainly more credible in climate science that the scientists we have in Australia who are censored, and the reason for scientists leaving the organization here. He may be a drunk in his spare time. But even Godfrey Bloom knows the real reason for these lies. SCAM SCAM SCAM look him up on Youtube, if you dare. You have no credibility (in my book)either.
    Look up John L Daly, who has opposed this stuff and since died. Calling it a relief or similar by Mann was not a great scientific moment.

  • John vance January 31, 2013, 7:45 pm |

    Wow you haven’t read any links I’ve sent, but keep spurting what you have been fed. Follow my previous links. The real world is full of failed scientists, so they took on meteorology, and cant even predict the weather 6 hours ahead of time, even when looking out the window.

    • Kirri January 31, 2013, 8:41 pm |

      Sorry John, I stopped responding to you when you brought Lord Monckton into it. No good can come from trying to debate with someone who accepts Monckton, a journalist who claims to have invented a cure for Graves disease, MS, common cold, the flu, HIV and food poisoning, as a credible scientific source.

  • John vance January 31, 2013, 3:45 am |

    This might explain the tangled web the (IPCC) intergovernemntal panel for climate change weaves. I have been studying this work of fiction by them for quite some time.
    The book makes a better study of this so called panel of experts than the ones used by political persuasions.
    Also this man who’s death they appeared to be happy with, in strange kind of way as revealed by their exposed emails.
    They will do anything for funding being politically motivated. Unfortunately even Al Gore didnt have his “Study” peer reviewed. If you wish to know the truth borrow the book “The delinquent Teenager ” we thought was a climate change expert. Of course going on form there will also be “experts refuting her book. But how about gut feeling? All the gut feeling in the world tells me its all about spin and lies. Its been in the pipeline for many years to take advantage of a drought locally predicted to happen by an honest forecaster called Indego Jones.

  • Warwick Wakefield January 29, 2013, 12:02 pm |

    The green mantra is that nature is good while humanity is bad.

    I say that humanity is wonderful, awe_inspiringly wonderful.

    Look at this

    • BobinOz January 31, 2013, 12:18 am |

      Kirri, what is this “accepted science” of which you speak? Who is it accepted by?

      When it comes to climate change, there is certainly no “accepted science”. For a scientific theory to be widely accepted, surely that theory should be tested in laboratory conditions repeatedly to prove its universal acceptance?

      That hasn’t, and cannot happen, with climate change.

      The way I see it, it is only the scientists sitting on the gravy train receiving huge financial grants/wages from governments around the world that believe humans are the cause of climate change. The majority of the scientists not on the payroll aren’t accepting any of it.

      It is, I’m afraid, all about governments looking for more ways to control the people.

      As John has pointed out, you are being used. And as Warwick has pointed out, you are being used to promote a new religion; nature = good and humanity = bad. He’s given up on you, he thinks you’re a true believer, I think there’s still time for you to change your mind.

      Humanity IS wonderful and awe-inspiring, that’s why we should fight against being crushed and controlled by governments with their own agendas.

      • Kirri January 31, 2013, 6:07 pm |

        Ok, well essentially what I mean by accepted science, is that in the peer reviewed literature. Now, that doesn’t mean that all articles in peer review journals are perfect and should be taken as gospel but if it’s not in a journal it doesn’t count. Between 1991 and 2012, there were 13, 950 journal articles published on the subject of global climate change and global warming. Of those, 24 reject human caused warming. That’s 0.17%. Hardly an encouraging figure for your point of view. This result is hardly surprising given that other studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists accept manmade warming.

        The underlying physics of climate change is based on laboratory experiments which show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming the earth. These lab experiments were first conducted by John Tyndall in the 1850’s but they’ve been improved a bit since then. These experiments make it clear that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat.

        So the basic science is based around lab experiments but your wrong when you say that science has to consist of experiments in a lab. Chemistry and physics are highly lab based fields but the earth and life sciences rely heavily on data taken from the natural world. Biologists track and collect data from animals in the wild for any number of studies, geologists record the locations of earthquakes around the world which provides evidence for the theory of plate tectonics and numerous other sciences involve collecting and analysing data outside the lab. Climatologists measure weather statistics from around the world, of course, but they also track energy leaving and entering the earths atmosphere. Energy from the sun passes through the earths atmosphere and hits the earth. Some of it will be absorbed and some will be reflected back out to space. When this reflected energy hits the greenhouse layer some of it will pass through and some will be trapped by the greenhouse gases. We can use satellites to measure how much energy is passing through this layer and how much is reflected back to earth. Now, each of the greenhouse gases trap energy at a specific wavelength. When analysing the data of how much energy escapes the greenhouse layer, studies show that there has been a significant change in the wavelengths which are trapped by CO2 and methane but little change in the other gases since 1970. Similarly, stations on the ground can detect energy returning to the earths surface and they show a corresponding increase in energy reaching them at the precise wavelengths that interact with CO2. That there is direct evidence of humans being the cause of this warming. More energy means more heat.
        Other evidence for the source of the warming is shown in the pattern of warming. If the sun was the cause of the warming we should see more warming during the day than at night, more warming in winter than summer and warming throughout the entire atmosphere. Conversely warming caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect would cause more warming at night, during winter and warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. What we are seeing in the data is more warming at night, during winter and a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere. Again, direct evidence that the greenhouse effect is the source of the warming.
        Most of the above states so clearly that humans are behind this that most of the scientists who work in a climate related field and are still skeptical of climate change have reverted to arguing climate sensitivity. That is, warming is occurring, it is influenced by human actions but it’s not going to be very bad so we shouldn’t worry about it. I could argue this point but since you’re not there yet it’s not really important at this stage and I think this post is long enough.
        One more thing thought, yes humans are capable of wonderful, amazing things. I love technology and I love civilization and am in no way campaigning for a return to pre technology times. I don’t think I would survive without it. But since we’re capable of so much we should be more than capable of doing all this without causing the extinction of the species around us.

        • BobinOz January 31, 2013, 9:45 pm |

          Hi Kirri

          Thanks for your extremely long and detailed answer, I did read it all, but I’m not going to pretend I understood it all, but I do of course understand the point you are trying to make.

          “…Most of the above states so clearly that humans are behind this…”

          You have also made a quite astonishing claim about the overwhelming number of scientists who now accept this theory, saying that out of nearly 14,000 articles only “…24 reject human caused warming. That’s 0.17%.”

          I, personally, am not going to argue with you, because this is not my subject and I’m not a scientist. I do think both John and Warwick will give you a good run for your money though.

          All I want to say is from a layman’s point of view, your above two claims do not make sense. There is a ton of evidence that this planet was hotter during periods of our history long before the Industrial Revolution. I also know, for sure, that I have come across far more people who think this theory that humans are the cause of global warming is a load of old rubbish, that’s people both within and not in the field of science.

          So I would strongly dispute your belief that more than 99% accept the theory.

          I do though believe that more than 99% who submitted journal articles about the subject think it’s all down to us humans, but I also think they were probably paid quite handsomely to draw that conclusion by the governments that employed them.

          Sometimes in life I think you have to go with your gut feeling, you are going with yours, I am going with mine. On that basis, I don’t think we will ever agree and I don’t think we need to either. My real gripe with this global warming thing is that a carbon tax will never solve it. That, in itself, makes me certain that this thing is all about control and manipulation of the people by our governments.

          I’ve enjoyed so many of the other comments you’ve made on my website, but on this subject, let’s just agree to disagree 🙂


          • Kirri February 2, 2013, 6:53 am |

            Just to clarify, its not my claim that 97% of climate scientists accept man made global warming, that number comes from 2 separate peer reviewed studies that both came up with the same result. You have to remember the sheer number of scientists around so even a large number of scientists comes back as a tiny fraction of scientists. There’s something called the Oregon petition where 31000 scientists have said they don’t believe in global warming but there are like 20 million scientists in America by the petitions definition of the world. So we’re only talking about 0.15%.

            But anyway, thank you for reading the whole thing, I didn’t actually expect it to make a difference, but I wanted to make sure it was out there. Sorry if it was hard to understand, I tried to explain it as simply as I could but it’s hard without knowing what background knowledge you were starting with and I didn’t want to make the post any longer by explaining all the simple stuff first.
            I could address Warwicks claim below about CO2 being a small effect but I think it’s best that I bow out for now cause I know there’s no way I’m changing any of your minds if you won’t understand the science and some of Warwicks and Johns posts are getting quite intense, I don’t want to get involved in that kind of debate 🙂 I’m sure I’ll comment again next time you make a post about climate change hehe, but goodbye for now.
            Also, hope the floods in your area have all cleared up by now and everything’s back to normal.

        • John Vance February 17, 2013, 8:58 am |

          PS CO2 is capable of holding heat, but like all fluid gases disperses, and can not “hang” on to it as our green house disperses heat into outer space. In a glass greenhouse, the roof traps it, as the sun keeps pumping it up. No real understanding of our planet is possible until all world numbers regarding interactions at one point in time are calculated, and then many more need to be put in to see how they all work together. Statistically impossible, even with satellites and super computers due to constantly changing variables. They’re measuring air temperature, when they should be looking at ocean temperatures as a whole, it DOES retain heat and transfers it acting as a moderator of our planets temperature. Just that makes me wonder what other non brilliant ideas they have to make illogical conclusions.

  • Warwick Wakefield January 28, 2013, 6:34 pm |

    you are a green and greens are immune to evidence.

    Your starting point is the wickedness of humanity, this idea guides your thinking and that is also your conclusion.
    If you had been willing to accept evidence you would have turned on Flannery and rejected him.

    You would have been humble when the mean world temperature failed to show any increase over the last fifteen years, even though the CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily increased.

    I will not waste my energy on bigots
    As the horror of communism unfolded, a few communists, like Gide and Malreaux and Koestler allowed the scales to fall from their eyes and renounced their mistakes; but the great majority clung to their ghastly ideologies. Nothing could influence them.
    It is a waste of energy to argue with true believers.

    • Kirri January 28, 2013, 8:27 pm |

      Hmm coincidentally that’s the same reason I decided not to present evidence to you..

      • John vance January 28, 2013, 9:31 pm |

        Kerri, it seems you also follow the money.
        The money trail in the revised name climate change is the issue.
        The United Nations agenda 21 has been mentioned, as has ICLEI, the propaganda branch of the UN for local councils You are being used for your own passion, and its being used to change world government. I wanted to believe Al Gore once, I once did, I soon decided that I was being brainwashed. Be careful what you wish for! The saying “act locally do globally” means they wish to control the whole world by messing with your mind. Use logic to fight them. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY AND CONTROL. Which in the end seems like communism.
        Look up Godfrey Bloom on youtube and the much maligned Lord Monckton. Theyre not giving into unionist mantra. But you are it seems. LABOR IS ENDORSING IT. Pls open your eyes…

  • Warwick Wakefield January 28, 2013, 12:26 pm |

    Here, from Kirri, we have the perfect statement of the fundamental metaphysics of the environmentalist true believers.
    “I personally would like to see all the wonderful creatures that are present in this world live on, and so I will continue efforts to save the environment rather than the earth. Humans though, I think the world could do without.”

    Nature = good
    Humanity = bad

    This is why the environmentalist types cling so strongly to the theory of human induced, catastrophic global warming; it fits their underlying metaphysics.
    Damn the evidence; we have to support the metaphysics no matter what.

    So the environmentalist types make absurd and totally unscientific predictions, as Tim Flannery did.
    When one of them is revealed as nothing more than a propagandist, as Flannery has been, you would think that the “green” establishment would disown him, as a matter of tactics. But no, Flannery is still a hero in his gold castle, just as the arch- charlatan Paul Ehrlich is still a hero, to Greenpeace, the ABC, SBS and the rest of the environmentalist true believers.

    If News Ltd is the “Hate Media”, then Fairfax and the ABC are the “Gullible Schoolgirl Media.”

    The lies and distortions and obscurantisms of the Global Warming promoters are there for all to see.
    Greenpeace and the IPCC and other “green ” groups are the source.
    Their mates in the media protect and promote them.
    The real question is; why?

    It is a red herring to look for conspiracies. There are always a few conspiracies here and there, on all sides, but that is just a side issue.

    The underlying cause, the necessary and sufficient explanation, is the environmentalist article of faith:

    Nature = good
    Humanity = bad.

    In a milder form, this is our zeitgeist. The whole world subscribes, in one form or another. Communism no longer grips the imagination of the youth and intelligentsia in the way it used to. The wars and terrors of the twentieth century have destroyed faith in progress and politics to a large degree. The new religion, to a greater or lesser degree, is environmentalism. And here, stripped down, is the faith:

    Nature = good
    Humanity = bad.

    This new religion, if it is allowed, will be as fanatical and cruel, and as opposed to human freedom, as were the dictatorships of the USSR and Cambodia, and as North Korea is today. Since the “green” propagandists and promoters have shown themselves to be as devoid of morality and scientific integrity as any other cult, they should be given no quarter; they should be opposed, resisted, exposed and undercut at every opportunity.

    “Hang on,” you might say, “there’s nothing wrong with wanting to save the whales and getting rid of pollution.”
    And of course there’s not.
    But this simple and virtuous campaign has mutated into something twisted and weird.

    Nature = good
    Humanity = bad

    The desire to clean up pollution has morphed into the desire to get rid of human made carbon dioxide, which, using the propagandist’s black arts, has been falsely named “pollution.” And getting rid of human made carbon dioxide entails the destruction of the industry that has made us prosperous.

    The Greens don’t want us to be prosperous. They would like to see most of us dead, and the few remaining living more or less subsistence lives, travelling by sailing ships, getting power from windmills, living in scattered bands and ruled by green committees. They would like to get a firm grip on inventors and entrepeneurs and stop them. The Henry Fords and the Steve Jobs would have no place in their green theocracy. Poverty, chastity and the worship of sacred forest and trees would be the prevailing mood.

    • Kirri January 28, 2013, 4:08 pm |

      Hey, you show me some evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn’t real, then I will change my opinion. In fact I would love for climate change to be proven wrong, it would be nice to not have to worry about how much damage we are doing. But since all the evidence points to anthropogenic climate change being real, then I’m going to stick with the accepted science.

  • John Vance January 8, 2012, 4:24 pm |

    What is the truth?
    “The real agenda of the climate alarmists is to promote massively expanded government regulation worldwide, at the expense of jobs creation and economic growth. The policies they advocate will do the greatest harm to the world’s poorest people and ensure that citizens of developing nations have no chance at true freedom and prosperity.”

    Gandhi told us, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    CFACT’s mission to Durban at Also at, &
    I doubt whether many have had as much time to evaluate these climate claims as I have. But it pays to follow the money trail. It seems financiers and large financial organisations, even crooked organisations are loving the carbon tax.

    • BobinOz January 9, 2012, 3:18 pm |

      Surely the government are only doing “something” so they can hold on to power by securing the backing of the Green party?

      Not so much “save the planet” as save my job, I think.

      • John Vance January 9, 2012, 6:23 pm |

        “FITNESS FOR USE Definition: Effectiveness of a design, manufacturing method, and support process employed in delivering a good, system, or service that fits a customer’s defined purpose, under anticipated or specified operational conditions.”
        This must include affordability of the product.
        “Industry is more than willing to risk research dollars on technologies that show real promise, but it is not willing to flush shareholder money down a rat hole. Politicians, however, operate from different incentives. When a crisis, real or imagined, makes headlines, they want voters to see them doing “something” about it, and they must move quickly because election cycles and constituent attention spans are short. Funding long-term research in promising technologies is not sufficient to meet politicians’ needs. Solar panels, wind turbines, and ethanol refineries are all current technology, and can be erected quickly with fanfare and photo-ops. By the time these alternative power sources prove to be financial (or not) and, possibly, environmental busts, the politicians will have been re-elected and voters’ attention will have shifted to the next crisis.
        These are not all my words but my sentiments. My paper show my worst fears realised.

        • BobinOz January 9, 2012, 10:51 pm |

          Good point… ‘Funding long-term research in promising technologies is not sufficient to meet politicians’ needs.’

          We’re stuffed then! But then I suspect we already knew that.

  • John Vance January 8, 2012, 2:33 pm |

    Kirri said “I kinda like that they are doing SOMETHING” but not anything worthwhile, and only things that will make the quality of life in general poorer and keep those who are at present feeling the world financial pinch in charge. Because it is finance and competition from China that is causing the political counter solution of carbon tax. I am not a skeptic of any science that isnt politically motivated, but it seems many educational organisations are also teaching others that it is humans creating the warming. It wouldnt be the solar influence or the fact that we have been in a warming period for some time? That may be about to change. Some say global cooling is on the agenda.
    My website will soon have an unbiased (I hope) view of the whole energy problems we are facing, including why polititicans must seem to be doing something. Its a good view of things in the energy world. Meanswhile look at this link: about clowns in the energy world.

  • Kirri January 8, 2012, 1:27 pm |

    I would like to adress some of the points raised both in the original post and the comments. Just for a little background, I have recently completed a 3 year degree in environmental science, so while I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, I do have some background in the area.
    Firstly, I can’t comment on the particular documentary you’re talking about Bobinoz but in terms of predictions of cooling in the past, very few scientists actually did. Predictions of a cooling period were mainly the work of the media based on a handful of articles. A study has shown that in the ’70s, just 7 articles predicted cooling and the media ran with this and predicted death and disaster, as the media do. In comparison, in that same decade, 42 articles predicted a warming trend. Talk of climate change reaches back to the ’50s, scientists did not suddenly decide to use this term instead of global warming, they are different phenomena, although closely related and the use of both terms has risen equally over the past 40 years.
    Second point- Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. You said that they pointed out 9 errors in his film. Most of the errors mentioned are based on a lack of evidence. They are not neccessarily wrong but Gore asserted things that could not be proven at that time. According to one report “So contrary to all the reporters’ claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance.”
    However, even assumming that al Gore was wrong, this does not disprove climate change. Gore is not a scientist, while he did get a lot right in the film I don’t deny some assertions are definitely incorrect. But the science has shown an assortment of evidence both for climate change and the human influences to it. If you want to disprove climate change, work on debunking the science rather than Al Gore.
    Now, to your assertion that the warming is the natural rhythm of the Earth and the sun. I’ll agree of course that climate does change regularly without human influence, but the problem here is that scientists have looked at the natural causes and are unable to find a corellation with the current period. Scientists didn’t just see warming and assume it was us. Scientists have been studying the effects of the sun for a long time, and for most of this time, there was a distinct correlation between changes to the solar radiation and the earths temperature. That is no longer true. In fact the solar radiation has shown no particular trend over the last 30/40 years and if anything could be said to be cooling slightly. And yet the earths climate is still warming therefore this warming is coming from another source. While there are obviously other natural sources of warming these have also been looked at but I won’t go into them here because this post is already going to be way too long. Google it, and look at something other than media or blogs and you’ll find it. (not that I’m against blogs, I’ve greatly enjoyed reading yours, but as far as scientific information goes, they don’t have a great reputation)
    I didn’t watch the video, because my monthly internet quota is kinda runnning out and an hour long video takes up a lot so I can’t comment on this sorry.
    To Gordon who linked to a NASA page about the troposphere not warming. This page is from 1997 and contains evidence from studies done in 1995 and 1992! Not exactly up to date. More recent studies have shown that the troposhere is experiencing warming and have shown that the data you were referring to is inaccurate.
    TripleA in Adelaide- I liked the quote about the earth shrugging us off like dogs shaking off water. Puts me in mind of one of my fave quotes “If we blow up or degrade the biosphere to the point it can no longer sustain us, mother nature will simple shrug and conclude that letting the apes run the laboratory was fun for a while but, in the end, a bad idea”, Ronald Wright. I agree, we will not destroy the earth, it will go on as always. Of course whether humans and all the other flora and fauna on the planet are around to see it is a matter for debate. So, from the point of view of the earth, hey climate change pfft, no worries, but the rest of us should probably have some concerns. I personally would like to see all the wonderful creatures that are present in this world live on, and so I will continue efforts to save the environment rather than the earth. Humans though, I think the world could do without.
    Bobinoz, you talk about proof, and you’re right. Proof in a scientific context is a big word and proving any of this is not going to happen. However I have seen enough evidence to come pretty damn close and am willing to act on the basis of this. The cost of doing nothing is far higher.
    Now when it comes to the carbon tax, well thats politics and I don’t like politics. I’m not exactly against it cause I kinda like that they are doing SOMETHING, but no I don’t think it will solve all our problems.
    For any future arguments, I would recommend the skeptical science website. I’m always hesitant to get my info from internet sites, but as far as I can tell, everything is well referenced from peer reviewed articles but presented in an easy to understand format and is definitly a much better source of infromation than the media.
    Anyway, sorry for the super long post. As I said, I’m by no means an expert, but I have tried to the best of my abilities to look at some of the arguments presented and focus on what the SCIENCE says and not the media and politicians.

  • John Vance June 20, 2011, 9:16 pm |

    I dont think they wil lbe able to say ” I told you so” That will be a long time after theyve taken the money and run. Look at Al Gore ‘s place, near the sea, living the life of a scam king…
    Al the crap the scientists are copping (Only reported on the ABC — Labor party sympathisers) to gain sympathy. They tax the gas we breathe out, cause oxygen is free. Theyve managed to tax other waste we all produce as well. (Wont go into sewage, it sticks to your boots)

    • BobinOz June 22, 2011, 10:24 pm |

      Was Al Gore’s new place really by the sea? Isn’t he supposed to be worried about rising tides? Unbelievable!

      • John Vance June 22, 2011, 11:10 pm |

        Former Vice President Al Gore and his (now former wife after Al’s previous indiscretions with another woman) wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
        The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms. Link> The sorta place to forget about carbon credits it would seem!

        • BobinOz June 24, 2011, 8:07 pm |

          Wow! How can anybody take anything this man says seriously?

          When Bush ‘won’ that last state, the one his brother or cousin or something ran, I wondered if the wrong bloke became President.

          Now I’m thinking George may have been the good guy!

  • BobinOz June 20, 2011, 8:48 pm |

    I think I preferred the first link, because it shows that no matter what happens to the the weather, politicians will find a way of making money out of it.

    And if I’m not mistaken, whether our globe warms or we enter into an ice age, most climate scientists will probably still say “I told you so”. After all, they all work under the banner of “climate change” these days. And they will tell us that the climate got warmer (as predicted) which melted the solar ice cap, which in turn stopped the Gulfstream, which led to Europe turning to ice until a critical mass forced a new ice age globally.

    So whatever happens, the politicians and scientists would win.

    Meanwhile, the Earth will continue to do whatever it wants to do, irrespective of what is and isn’t taxed.


  • John Vance June 17, 2011, 11:46 pm |

    PS I meant growing vegetation to grow fuels like ethanol.

  • John Vance June 17, 2011, 11:42 pm |

    Eyes wired shut? That sort of describes the people who have simple mantra. Follow the scientists, when they have been predicting since the 1960’s, that we are going to have a little ice age? That they cannot even predict when the local train is going to leave. That’s really how hard it is…See here: the latest predictions. Were going to have a little ice age maybe, if etc…–dont-panic.html
    Lets do one thing right. Stop pollution, stop the damn government affecting technology, and let technology find its own level in that regard. Growing vegetation at the expense of food. Oh hell…they’re driving me crazy! I’m a heading for the beach, but first I’m going to drop buy my local tax office and tell they’re dreaming!

    • Gordon June 19, 2011, 5:59 pm |

      I thought for a moment that your link was a genuine op-ed piece , until I read it ! As a comedian , he should probably not give up his day job though , it struck me as more sarcastic or ” having a lend” than anything else . Whatever floats his boat though .

  • BobinOz June 15, 2011, 12:55 am |

    Gentlemen, I think the thing with this debate is you either believe humans and their carbon emissions are causing global warming, or you don’t. For most of us, that means listening to the experts, the scientists, and making our minds up based on what they say.

    Some scientists are paid huge amounts of money to prove that taxing carbon is a good idea. As Gordon has pointed out with one of his links, there is a lot of tax money involved here. Something like $20 billion a year in Australia alone. So that $180,000 (part-time) salary paid to the hapless head of the Government’s Climate Commission is peanuts by comparison.

    Even if, and it’s a big if, man made carbon emissions are the cause, does anybody really believe taxing it will solve the problem? We already have huge taxes on petrol, but more and more people still drive around in cars. A carbon tax is simply a way of raising money. And as TripleA in Adelaide says, ‘They will always hurt the poor and middle class the most.’

    And John of Brisbane, of course the film has been refuted. There is too much money involved for the many scientists on the global warming bandwagon not to refute it. Search Google and you’ll see that everything is refuted. I searched and discovered that Elvis is still alive and guess what? This is what he’s up to..

    ‘Elvis Presley, the man, the myth, the legend, the king of rock-n-roll, IS ALIVE and working as an undercover agent for the DEA.’

    That’s a cheap shot, I know. The debunking of the global warming swindle movie is not as cranky is that, I’ve seen some of the points it has been pulled up on. But Al Gore pulled some strokes in his film too, after all, this is a bunfight. Yes, scientists are having a bunfight!

    The science is not settled on this. There is no real proof that global warming is man-made. If I’m not mistaken, for science to prove anything they have to reproduce it in laboratory conditions. And that’s never going to happen with this one.

    So it’s down to us to decide, based on what they tell us. But it’s only when the people who tell us what to do act as though they mean it, that it becomes worth anything. Al Gore isn’t cutting down too much on his carbon footprint, is he? On that basis, why should we? And why should we be taxed on it?

    • TripleA in Adelaide June 15, 2011, 7:11 pm |

      John in Brisbane, Bob in Oz, TripleA in Adelaide . . . this is Australia talking! Hey, government, listen up!

      Today, I attended a private no-press conference where the treasurer of the state presented the budget for the next few years. All I could say was, “ouch”.

      • BobinOz June 20, 2011, 8:52 pm |

        ……and we will all be saying ouch for the next few years too.

  • John in Brisbane June 14, 2011, 1:01 pm |

    Folks, that film has been comprehensively refuted, including by some of the people who appear in it who were upset that they were misrepresented. Google it – I won’t list the main sites here. I urge you not to seize upon individual pieces of information – the trends and the overall pattern are clear.

  • TripleA in Adelaide June 12, 2011, 8:49 pm |

    Nicely put Bob. Living in Australia still beats living in most places on Earth, but man, this tax shameful. More so, as you so eloquently put it, because the people are cheering for it. This has to be one fo the greatest cons ever accomplished in modern politics after G.W. Bush stole the presidency from Al Gore. I be the so-called “leaders of the free world” are taking notes as we speak, learning from Australia’s masterful spin doctors.

    Will greener companies and less emissions help us live in a cleaner environment? Yes. Will it destroy Earth if we don’t do anything about it? Absurd. The day we really annoy Earth, it’ll simply shake us off like a dog shakes rain water (quoting the brilliant George Carlin).

    Can we poison our own water supply? Yes. Can we poison our soil and ruin our crops? Yes. Can we open up the ozone layer and die of skin cancer? Yes . . . but we can’t destroy Earth, even if all the nukes go off at once. Earth will remain right where it is. “We” will be the ones to go. So, all that “saving the Earth” BS is grossly arrogant, and taxes are harmful, no matter to whom or for what. They will always hurt the poor and middle class the most. Yet, they’re the ones who always scream out “Tax the rich! Tax the rich!”. Ignorant fools. Tax is tax, and it will always scale down to those who are most affected by it . . . the struggling classes.

    Should incentives be given for companies to go green? Hell yes. Let’s push for that. Taxes for carbon? Shame on you.

    That’s just like creating more jails and bringing back the death penalty, hand chopping for thieves, castration for rapists, eye piercing for voyeours, etc., instead of using that money for better schools, better paid teachers, police and fire departments, hospitals, and public works.

    We should be focusing on prevention, not in punishment. But of course, punishment is always much more lucrative. Long live Captain Hindsight.

  • Gordon June 12, 2011, 8:09 pm |

    When the global warming scare was perpetrated a few years ago , I and many others bought into it , I believed it ! I put energy saving lights in my house , added insulation ( at my own cost , not part of the subsidy debacle ) and my electricity bill went down!
    I was saving the planet and money , win win ! The cost of electricity quickly rose though , and I’m now spending more than ever although using less . Bummer.

    Then I started hearing reputable people questioning the science and the IPCC itself was found to be manipulating some of the data ( climategate ) , I began to question AGW and over time became the skeptic I am now.

    Here is a link to a NASA webpage which discusses satellite temperature data ( satellites are unbiased , unlike land readings where readings can be taken in urban heat sinks etc. )
    An excerpt – “computer models also predict that the Earth’s lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced.”
    “Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.”

    That is from 1997 , other NASA pages seem to take a different view , so we , the public are left to decide who is most right .
    One thing for sure , the science is NOT settled .

    Overseas readers have likely never heard of John Clarke and Brian Dawe who do a satirical sketch each week , usually quite funny , John usually plays the part of a person of contemporary interest , Brian the interviewer .
    Some of their videos can be be seen here – and they did one called “the repairman” ( on climate ) which has been pulled for some reason , however the dialogue can be read here – ,
    everything those two do should be read or viewed with sense of humour firmly engaged 🙂 It is satire after all .

    Lastly , here is a view on the money trail of a carbon tax , worth a read and this is not satire –
    and this is that authors self written bio –

    • John Vance June 19, 2011, 7:20 pm |

      Its a bit strange that both of the latest satellites to measure temperature have failed to reach orbit. Sabotage? Scientists made a mistake? You dont say!
      There’s been so much debunking from both sides of the argument, you have to think. Why: Failure of capitalism? China on the rise. America fails to retard China? War? World economy in a mess? When did this happen? When China started to overtake America! As you say: follow the money trail… It appears as a huge conspiracy of sorts….
      I hate the theories, but you have to think….what if.

Leave a Comment

If your comment doesn’t get answered, find out why…..
FAQs and Comment Policy.