.
In 2012 the world invested
almost a billion dollars a day in the idea of global warming.
=========================
12/10/13,
"At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald," JenniferMarohasy.com.
About Dr. Marohasy
"I’VE been unimpressed with new Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the
nature of the Coalition’s election victory. During the recent election
then Shadow Minister, now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, repeatedly stated
that “We agree… on the science of climate change, we agree on the
targets to reduce emissions and we agree on using markets as the best
mechanism.”
There has been no one prepared to publically put the alternative
perspective on climate change, to speak up and explain that of course
the climate has always changed, but there is no evidence to suggest we
currently have a climate catastrophe or that a carbon tax will have any
effect on the climate. Until yesterday. While I wouldn’t consider Ian
MacDonald’s speech to the Australian Senate particularly well written,
it is inspiring in so much as at last we have an Australian politician
speaking plainly in parliament about the nonsense that is climate change
and the carbon tax…
Senator IAN MACDONALD
(Queensland) (12:56): "There is a long list of speakers on the Clean
Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013. I am one of the few
from the coalition who will be speaking. The Labor Party are quite
clearly filibustering on this and every other bill to cause as much
difficulty as possible to the Australian public. The Australian public
want this bill passed before Christmas. They made their views very, very
clear at the last federal election. The government is keen to honour
its commitment to the Australian people to abolish the carbon tax and
all the trappings that go with it, and that is why government speakers
will be noticeable by their absence from this debate.
We are, thanks to
the Labor Party and the Greens, dealing with each bill separately, and I
will not have the opportunity of speaking on any other bills, so my
remarks, as I indicated earlier, are in the broader way. I am also
keenly aware that we want to get on, so I will try to confine my
remarks. I have already spoken for about eight minutes.
Before concluding, I just want to emphasise this point: I think this
whole climate change debate will go down in history as one of the great
frauds on the Australian people—similar to Y2K, I would suggest. The
suggestion is that having the world’s biggest carbon tax, which will
reduce our emissions by five per cent—that is, five per cent of the 1.4
per cent of emissions that come from Australia—will change the climate
of the world. You have heard Senator Milne time and time again telling
us all that this climate change process in Australia is what is going to
save the world. She cannot possibly believe that. Nobody in their right
mind could possibly believe that.
I have always said the climate is changing. Clearly it is. Australia
used to be covered in ice once. The centre of Australia used to be a
rainforest. Clearly the climate is changing. Is it man’s emissions that
have done it? I do not know; I am not a scientist. But I say again that
there are a great number of reputable scientists who doubt it. I
acknowledge there are a great number of reputable scientists who are
absolutely passionate about the argument, but I might say I am not
convinced. But I do accept the climate is changing. But why Australia,
which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions,
should be leading the way nobody has ever been able to explain to me.
Why Australia should have the world’s largest carbon tax when it is such
a small emitter again escapes me, and nobody, in any debate we have had
in this chamber, has ever been able to explain to me why it is that we
should destroy Australian industry, destroy Australian jobs, for no
benefit whatsoever.
As the report I was referring to when I last spoke on this says, it
is all pain for no environmental gain. It is clear that Australia acting
alone cannot change anything. We will do what Australia committed to
do—that is, reduce our emissions by five per cent. We will do it by the
direct action method. But I emphasise, even in relation to our programs,
that unless the rest of the world does something then it is not going
to make one iota of difference. I have heard all the statistics, but I
know the other statistics. China opens a coal fired power station every
week. India continues to use fossil fuel. I am not critical of them for
doing that. All I am saying is: why does Australia put itself at such a
commercial disadvantage for something that is not making one iota of
difference? The sooner we get rid of this authority and all the
trappings that go round the Labor-Green con job, if I might call it
that, of climate change, the better Australia will be.
I am quite sure that in years to come people will look back on
history and say: ‘Remember how Y2K was going to destroy the world?
Remember global warming?’—as it was originally—’Well, we’re still
going.’ Whilst the coalition will do its five per cent, as we have
always committed to, we are not going to do it at the expense of the
Australian people. We took this proposal to the election. No Australian
could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This
election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been
in any doubt…”
Thank you Mr MacDonald." via Tom Nelson
================================
Comment: Even the
US EPA agrees with Mr. MacDonald, freely admits its
ban on new coal plants will have no effect on CO2 emissions, page 346,
Sept. 20, 2013 document submitted to Fed. Register. The lynchpin of the global warming industry,
the US government, admits it's draconian 'global warming' legislation isn't about saving the planet for our children, that it's
destroying Americans and their country for no reason.
Global warming fraud continues around the world because the US
Republican Party chose to cease to exist. The radical left democrat party is
the only functioning political party in the US today. In
a one-party system, the people have no protection. This is especially so in the US because the media serves government. So-called
Republican Party leaders are happy junior democrats. The
first Pres. George Bush, a supposed Republican,
is as responsible as anyone for the success of
the $1 billion a day global warming industry. Before Bush, going back to
1980 if not before, US politicians had begun stealing money from taxpayers and funneling it to cronies for
alleged CO2 terror purposes. Why should they stop now?
Who could stop them? Everything was done gradually. They gave themselves a generation. You can get people to believe anything if you have a generation to do it and you have the weapon of Political Correctness. It's been so successful in the case of global warming that
people today say they don't mind being defrauded in the name of global warming. After being told they were defrauded by a global warming scam people said
they didn't mind because it still made them feel good. Societal pressure created
a $1 billion/day industry about a lie that steals from the poor
and gives to the rich.
Americans in 1773 were different:
"King George III," History of the USA
Converted from Henry William Elson's, History of the United States of America, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1904:
"The Americans now refused to
purchase tea from England; they smuggled it from Holland.
The English
then, by an ingenious trick, made their tea cheaper in America than it
was in England, or than that smuggled from Holland. They did this by
removing the duty always paid at an English port by the tea merchant on
his way from the Orient to America.
But the colonists still refused to
buy the tea. The principle was at stake, --
the right of Parliament to
tax
them at all, -- and they were as determined as the English king.
Tea-laden ships reached Charleston, Philadelphia,
New York, and
Boston
late in the
autumn of 1773.
Excited meetings of citizens were held in
all these cities. In Charleston the tea was landed, only to rot in
storage; the Philadelphians refused to permit the ships to land.
Three ships lay in the harbor at Boston, but the people kept watch
day and night to prevent the landing of the tea. The owner of the
vessels was
informed by the excited people that he must take back his
tea to London; but this he could not do, as the governor refused him
permission to sail and two of the king's ships guarded the harbor.
Meetings were held nightly in Faneuil Hall, or Old South Church, and at
length, on December 16, after every legal method for returning the tea
had been exhausted,
a body of seven thousand men resolved that it should
not he landed; and half a hundred men, in the disguise of Mohawk
Indians, after giving a war whoop, ran silently to the harbor,
boarded
the ships, broke open the tea chests, about three hundred and forty in
number,
and threw the contents into the sea. The people looked on from
the shore, taking the proceedings as a matter of course.
Boston slept
that night as if nothing had happened. Who these fifty Indian-garbed
king-defiers were is not known; but
it is known who instigated the mob,
who was the mouthpiece of Boston at this moment, and of Massachusetts,
of New England, of America --
it was Samuel Adams, the "Palinurus of the
Revolution."
England stood aghast at the temerity of her sometime docile
colonists. The irate king, with monumental obstinacy and inability to
discern the signs of the times,
resolved to humble the Americans once
for all; nor did his short-sighted Majesty seem to doubt for a moment
his ability to do so. Of the colonists he writes,
"They will be lions
while we are lambs: but if we take the resolute part, they will
undoubtedly prove very meek."2 King
George now led his Parliament to pass in quick succession four drastic
measures against the people of Massachusetts. First, the Boston Port
Bill, which removed the capital from that city to Salem and closed the
port of Boston to the commerce of the world; second, the Regulating Act,
which annulled the Massachusetts charter and transformed the colony to
an absolute despotism; third, an act providing that persons accused of
certain crimes in connection with riots be transported to England, or to
some place outside of the colony for trial; while the fourth made it
legal to quarter troops in any town in Massachusetts.
These were soon
followed by the Quebec Act,
which extended the province of Quebec to
include all the territory west of the Alleghanies and north of the Ohio
River to the Mississippi -- except what had been granted by royal
charter. It is supposed that the act was intended to prevent pioneers
from settling in the Ohio country, and to win the favor of the French
Catholics.
Two years before these acts were passed (1772),
Massachusetts, led by
Samuel Adams, had made an important move toward
concerted action. "Committees of Correspondence" had been appointed
in
every town in the colony for the purpose of
guarding the interests of
liberty. The next year
Virginia
suggested the forming of a permanent
Committee of Correspondence to
extend to all the colonies.
This was gradually done, and the system was
very effective in spreading the doctrine of resistance.
Against the drastic British measures Massachusetts now made an appeal
for aid, and through these committees the people were prepared for an
immediate response. From Maine to
Georgia they made common cause with their brethren of the Bay colony, and
South Carolina
sounded the keynote in these ringing words,
"The whole country must be
animated with one great soul, and all Americans must stand by one
another, even unto death." Washington offered to arm and equip a
thousand men at his own expense and
to lead them to the relief of
Boston. Thomas Jefferson set forth the view in a pamphlet, the "Summary
View," that Parliament had no right to any authority whatever in the
colonies.
Nearly all the colonies joined in an agreement of
non-intercourse with England. As the day approached for the Port Bill to
take effect, cattle, grain, and produce from the other colonies began
to pour into Boston. The day came, and throughout the country it was
generally kept as a day of fasting and prayer; the church bells were
tolled, and flags were put at half-mast on the ships in the harbors.
Had
the English king
been able to glance over America on that day, he must have abandoned
every thought of punishing a single colony without having to deal with
them all; he must have seen that but two courses lay before him -- to
recede from his position, or to make war upon a continent."
-----------------------------------------
A distinguished scientist writes of his
resignation from a scientific society over its support of global warming fraud:
8/10/2010,
"Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society," published by Global Warming Policy Foundation
"
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.
So what has the APS, as an
organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the
corruption as the norm, and gone along with it."...
(
"Harold Lewis
is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa
Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of
Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s
Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear
Reactor Safety Chairman
Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON;
Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW
II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and
Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)" (Sometime after his resignation from APS, Dr. Lewis passed away).
--------------------------------------
American Physical Society
responds to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation. Dr. Lewis was right-they indeed think CO2 danger
is "settled science":
10/13/10, "
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation,"
WUWT
"Below is the press release (on the web
here)
from the American Physical Society, responding to the
resignation letter of APS fellow Dr. Hal Lewis made public last Friday,
October 8th. APS Members Dr. Roger Cohen, Dr. Will Happer,
and of
course Dr. Hal Lewis have responded in kind, and have asked me to carry
their response on WUWT. I’ve gladly obliged, and
their inline comments
are indented in blue italics in the document below. – Anthony
October 12, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Tawanda W. Johnson
Press Secretary
APS Physics
529 14th St. NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20045-2065"...
==============================
A billion dollars a day is nowhere near enough, billionaires want more taxpayer dollars:
10/22/13, "
Global climate investment flatlines," EurActiv
"The world invested almost a billion dollars a day
in limiting global warming last year,
but the total figure - $359
billion - was slightly down on last year,
and barely half the $700
billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to
tackle climate change.
These are the findings spelled out in the latest Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) report."...
============================
6/4/12, “Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006,” Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
“Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.”…Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American’s CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 --over half a century ago. …Coal is the number two source of CO2 for Americans. Today the average American burns an
amount similar to what they did in 1955, and even less than they did in
the 1940s. …It is exactly America’s historical role of biggest and
dirtiest that makes their sharp decline in CO2 pollution so noteworthy and potentially game changing at the global level.”...
. ---------------------------------------------------
"Bentek says that (US) power companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years [by 2017]. That
could bring coal's CO2 emissions down to 1980 levels."...
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years and
government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and
plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from
dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather
than direct government action against carbon dioxide....
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information
Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy
related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell
to about 1992 levels."...
.
=========================
.
CO2 US v China, 2005 to 2011, energy related, US EIA (US Energy Dept.), WSJ, April 2013
4/18/13, "Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions," WSJ, Russell Gold
"U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent
years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with
natural gas instead of coal.
Energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that
is widely believed to contribute to global warming, have fallen 12%
between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994,
according to a recent estimate by the Energy Information Administration,
the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department."...
.
=====================================
6/10/13, 2012 US CO2 continues to drop. Chart from IEA report, China continues to rise. (Above chart is thru 2011) :
======================
11/29/12, 134 scientists write to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon, asking him to desist from blaming climate disasters on global warming that hasn't happened:
"Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years."...“The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008”
report asserted that 15 years or more without any
statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between
observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”…(2nd parag. fr. end of letter). …"Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely
to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for,
and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused."...Special to Financial Post, 12/10/12
==========================
BBC discussion suggests a pause in confiscation of taxpayer dollars in the face of dual problems, that temperatures have remained flat since 1998 while CO2 has increased. Money was diverted based on predicted outcomes that didn't happen which "peer reviewed literature regards as established yet unexplained:"
7/22/13, "Andrew Neil on Ed Davey climate change interview critics," BBC, Andrew Neil
Multi-billion dollar "spending decisions, paid for by consumers
and taxpayers...might not have been taken (at least to the same
degree or with the same haste) if global warming was not quite the
imminent threat it has been depicted....The recent standstill in global temperatures is a puzzle. Experts do not know why it is occurring or how long it will last....There is no consensus. Extensive peer-reviewed literature regards it as established
yet unexplained. It is widely accepted that the main climate models
which inform government policy did not predict it."...(subhead, "Reputable evidence")
========================
CO2 doesn't cause "global warming" or "climate change:"
30
year peer reviewed scientific study, Jan. 1980-Dec. 2011, finds in all cases CO2 lags temperatures, never precedes temperature change. Scientists: "The
common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by
atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment."
January 2013, "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature," Global and Planetary Change, ScienceDirect.com
Ole Humluma, b, 
, 
,Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway, b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway, c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway, d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
[Green line is global CO2, red line is surface temps., blue line is ocean temps., Jan. 1980-Dec. 2011]
"Abstract
"Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period
January 1980 to December 2011....
In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets:
1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2
data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data,
3) GISS surface air
temperature data,
4) NCDC surface air temperature data,
5) HadSST2 sea
surface data,
6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series,
7) CDIAC
data on release of anthropogene CO2, and
8) GWP data on
volcanic eruptions."...
.
=============================
.
.
