http://www.cfact.org/a/1890/Who-could-oppose-clean-energy?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=331f46161b-Can%27t_sell_warming_Call_it_clean_energy3_7_2011&utm_medium=email 

By Dennis Avery

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/theres-a-lot-you-havent-told-us/story-fn6bmfwf-1226013112283 

• Tim Blair
• From: The Daily Telegraph
•  February 28, 2011

DEAR Prime Minister Gillard, Thank you for making the weather nicer by forcing us to pay more for everything. Who knew that fixing the global climate was so simple? Still, one or two questions remain about your new plan and a few related matters.

Yours in climate justice,

Tim

= = = = =

* BY how much will your carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia's temperature?

* IF after five years there has been no recorded decline in temperature, will the tax be abandoned?

CANBERRA - Death threats and electoral backlash against independent MPs crucial to Prime Minister Julia Gillard have underlined the dangerously fragile path that lies ahead of the minority Labor Government.

Pressure on two pivotal New South Wales independents - Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - has mounted since they supported Gillard after last year's election, and has accelerated with plans for a carbon tax.

The US president's chief science adviser says the nation's current efforts to tackle climate change are insufficient in the long-term.

Speaking to BBC News at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Washington DC, Professor John Holdren said the current US Congress was unlikely to pass new legislation to put a price on CO2 emissions.

President Obama's administration's efforts, he said, would instead have to focus on developing cleaner technologies, expanding the use of nuclear power and improving energy efficiency.

But he admits that in the long term, these initiatives on their own will not be enough. 

Professor John Holdren: "We didn't get as much done as the President had hoped for"

5 April 2011

by Professor Chris Rhodes

The IPCC broke three of its own rules when it cited the Stern Review 26 times in 12 chapters.

In March 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was interviewed by a reporter from the Bloomberg business news service. The discussion centered on the soon-to-be-released second installment of the IPCC's newly updated climate bible.

Tangentially, Pachauri was asked about the Stern Review, a report written by economists employed by the British government. Pachauri told Bloomberg the IPCC was aware of the 700-page report but that his organization's ability to make use of it was limited because it was not peer-reviewed.

Imagine my surprise therefore, when an audit of IPCC references I organized recently revealed that the IPCC had cited the Stern Review all over the place. Not once or twice. And not in a chapter or two. I'm talking at least 25 times across 12 chapters.

World Forest Industries

http://worldforestindustries.com/forest-biofuel/carbon-neutral/ 

It makes people feel good when they think they are doing something that is carbon neutral. But is anything we do carbon neutral? Carbon neutral is a term that has quickly become very popular. You might call it the latest trendy term of the self appointed “environmentally enlightened”.

Carbon neutral refers to anything that does not increase or decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This term can refer to both human and non human activity. The burning of fossil fuels are a main target of opposition from people using this term since fossil fuels are considered to be very much not carbon neutral.

Renewable energy sources like biofuel are often credited for being carbon neutral. The burning of biofuel does release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but since it comes from plants that absorbed the carbon from the atmosphere there is no net increase of carbon in this process. When you cut down a tree in the forest and burn it in your fireplace you do release the carbon from the tree into the atmosphere. But the idea is that the new tree that takes its place in the forest will absorb that CO2 as it grows. Therefore burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6516/The-UN-has-Become-a-Clear-Danger-to-Our-Energy-Future-and-National-Sovereignty 

Energy Tribune-

by Art Horn    8 February 2011

If you’re like me, a denizen of western civilization, the United Nations has targeted you and me. The crosshairs are trained on how we use energy and the intent is to change our energy generation methods and sources. This is a way for the UN to rule our future.

The UN firmly and unambiguously believes that using fossil fuels to power our civilization will destroy the climate of the world. Well, at least that’s what they say in public. Christiana Figueres was the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held at Cancun Mexico late last year. At the start of the convention she stated “We are all aware of how critical low-carbon growth is. While current energy generation contributes 80 percent of total CO2 emissions, global demand for energy is set to increase by up to 30 percent by 2030, especially in developing countries, which need reliable energy to grow their economies. In order to avoid a technological lock-in that could be disastrous for the next generation, decisions on both energy sources and energy use need to be made now.” (Emphasis ours. Neither I nor many of my friends would be part of that all.) It is interesting that she says “especially in developing countries, which need reliable energy to grow their economies.” Trouble is that wind and solar power, the darlings of the environmentalist religion, are the least reliable energy sources available. The reason she says this is because the debate is not really about energy; it’s about power and not the type that’s generated to make electricity.