Members' Contributions

Revenge of the Climate Laymen

Global warming's most dangerous apostate speaks out about the state of climate change science.


Barack Obama conceded over the weekend that no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be signed in Copenhagen next month. With that out of the way, it may be too much to hope that the climate change movement take a moment to reflect on the state of the science that is supposedly driving us toward a carbon-neutral future.

But should a moment for self-reflection arise, campaigners against climate change could do worse than take a look at the work of Stephen McIntyre, who has emerged as one of the climate change gang's Most Dangerous Apostates. The reason for this distinction? He checked the facts.


"Forecasting is difficult: particularly about the future"  This piece of wisdom is attributed to Yogi Bear.  But it does not apply to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, since they do not make "forecasts" at all, only "projections".  As they make clear, "projections" are dependent on the correctness of the assumptions made by the computer models and the futures scenarios from which they are made.
This has not always been so. In the first IPCC Report (1990). on the first page of the "Executive Summary" there was nearly a whole page headed " Based on current model results, we predict" with no less than ten actual "predictions".They used the phrase "models predict" several times throughout, but they did, at least admit that there were "uncertainties". 

More Argument Against Emissions Trading -Heather Roy

Heather Roy's Diary

Hon Heather Roy, ACT Deputy Leader 
Saturday, November 8 2009

This week another compelling argument was raised against the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), this time in a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Inc (NZIER) report titled 'Sustainable Development: Have We Got Our Priorities Right?'


The report looked at our current sustainable development policy "in light of international approaches to sustainability which focus on maintaining stocks of natural, physical, institutional and human capital" and examines our environmental priorities against:


* Scale of the value at risk


* Immediacy of threat


* Coverage


* Uniqueness


* Controllability

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion


By Stephen Adams and Louise Gray
Published: 3:11PM GMT 03 Nov 2009

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

Global Bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens

 By Joanne Nova  November 11, 2009

The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names—“Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less.  This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?

Intellectual Climate Change Update

TIA Daily  November 5, 2009

While we're all focused on the health-care debate—as we must be—there is an even more important battle looming beyond that one: the battle over global warming and the "cap-and-trade" energy rationing scheme currently being pushed through Congress, as the next item on its agenda after the health-care bill.

I think cap-and-trade represents a much larger and more direct threat to our lives and liberty than socialized medicine, but the good news is that we don't face a trade-off between fighting one issue versus fighting the other. The more we bog down the health-care bill, the more we push back cap-and-trade—and the less likely it is to be passed. Already, congressional leaders have announced a five-week delay in the progress of the cap-and-trade legislation, and some are speculating that the bill might have to be shelved until after the 2010 elections—which is probably as good as killing the thing.

As I have been warning, there is still a very serious danger that the EPA will attempt to impose energy rationing by executive fiat, bypassing Congress altogether. But at least the pro-science, pro-industry side has begun to gain momentum in pushing back the global warming dogma.

Seeing through Hoax of the Century


Janet Albrechtsen Blog | November 04, 2009


INCREASINGLY, the road to Copenhagen resembles a suburban street on Halloween with the number of climate change freak shows and stunts reaching a nadir in recent weeks. Nicholas Stern says we should turn vegetarian in order to combat climate change. If you must eat meat, eat kangaroos, says Ross Garnaut, because marsupials emit negligible amounts of methane. And that champagne you drank on Melbourne Cup day? Scientists scolded us with a report that a 750ml bottle of bubbly could produce 100 million bubbles, releasing five litres of carbon dioxide.

Yet far from rallying people to the cause of immediate action on climate change, every new cri de coeur may be turning people away. Could it be that those derided as the great unwashed are beginning to ask more questions than their smart political leaders or the bastions of intellectual curiosity in the media?

Carbon Capture & Burial – Monuments to Madness.


It is no surprise that Mr Rudd’s CCS Institute thinks that Carbon Capture & Storage will not be viable for twenty years (The Australian 29th Oct 09).
A viable business is one that gets no government favours or market guarantees, but earns profits selling products or services to willing buyers in an open market.
There is no evidence that burial of carbon dioxide will have any beneficial effects on climate. Moreover, reducing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will reduce plant growth and lower the ability of plants to cope with heat and drought.

Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot

Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 |

SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?

Alan Nicholl- A Call for Common Sense in the Global Warming Debate

The Gisborne Herald of 20 October carried a story on politicians from the Maldives signing a document under water calling on the world to get tough on global warming, blaming CO2 for the possibility of their nation being inundated by sea level rises. This type of blatant propaganda makes me extremely angry as there is absolutely no science to back such a claim. There is however a hell of a lot of politically motivated scientific fiction which has been eagerly grasped and distributed around the world as fact. All of this fiction is easy to disprove but the perpetrators of it seem to have control of the media outlets in an endeavour to protect their lies.


Subscribe to RSS - Members' Contributions