Members' Contributions

100 Days before the end of the Kyoto Protocol, pressure group says Climate will be key to independence debate.

As a result of finding out that the Kyoto commitments technically comes to an end on the 31st December, the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum have been investigating the likely consequences of this both in terms of what is likely to happen to the protocol and the wide implications when (as it seems) the protocol effectively ends operation on the 31st December.

We have written this up as a report. The main intention of this report has been to try to find the actual facts and having sorted the chaff from the wheat, ascertain what this might mean (with particular emphasis on Scotland).

The report has been produced to coincide with today which is 100 days to Kyoto Ends, and it is available on the website:

For obvious reasons, the report is biased toward Scotland and we can only really speak with authority about the Scottish context. We will welcome any comments on the report, criticism or suggestions for improvement.


Mike Haseler

Summary of main conclusions:

1.      Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol cease as of 31st December.

2.      The 3rd October 2012 is the latest date at which any amendment to the Kyoto protocol could have been passed for it to be operational by 1st January 2013.

3.      With no meeting planned, and huge delays for members states to ratify, there is no practical way for an amendment to be presented and ratified by the 143 members (3/4 of members).

Dr John Christy submission to the Energy and Power Subcommittee US House of Reps


The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.” Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion.

As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus.

The content of these climate reports is actually under the  control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.

The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Erosion of Christendom and the Predicament of Science


The Erosion of Christendom and the Predicament of Science


Some twenty years ago, I was a young science lecturer struggling with my first job at an institution of higher learning in Adelaide—famous of course as our "City of Churches"—a now embarrassing epithet reflecting Adelaide's one-time status as a key centre of Nonconformist Protestantism. Just returned from scientific training in the USA, I was feeling the anxiety that afflicts new academics finding themselves alone in lecture halls filled with critical, hard-to-impress late-teens: how the dickens do I hold their attention for the next forty-five minutes?

Returning to my department after a lecture one day, I mentioned my frustrations to a senior colleague. He was growing nostalgic upon nearing retirement and said something memorable that morning running along these lines: "Ah yes—things were much better in the early sixties when I started out. The little blighters used to grow up in church. They learned to sit still and pay attention to the sermon. It made our job as lecturers much easier."

Hidden cost of the Greens' agenda

by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, September 1, 2012

For years, environmental organisations in Australia have cast themselves as the only authentic defenders of the natural environment against ruthless human exploitation, usually identified with corporate Australia, particularly the mining industry, the forestry industry, agribusiness and “the big polluters” (who happen to be Australia’s electricity industry).

Their latest crusade is the introduction of a carbon tax, which is said to be necessary to prevent the build-up of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, which are said to be causing uncontrollable global warming. The tax has contributed to the latest rise in the price of electricity for millions of households and businesses around Australia.

At the same time that the carbon tax was introduced, Australian exports of coal — which are exempt from the tax — have continued to skyrocket … with the active encouragement of the government which imposed the carbon tax!

Putting things in perspective

THIS is fascinating - it's rather dazzling to see it presented this way.

ETS changes kill appetite for forestry ‘carbon farming’

| Thursday July 05, 2012

"Could there be a bigger insult to an 'actual' farmer than the concept of 'carbon farming'?"

BUSINESSDESK: Changes to the emissions trading scheme will stop investment in one of New Zealand's most important sources of future carbon emissions reduction – forestry "carbon farming", Carbon Farm chief executive Murray McClintock says.

As a provider of forest management services to the fledgling industry, he says "the net result of these changes will be there is very little incentive to supply New Zealand Units into the New Zealand carbon market".

"We are trapped now in a price-taking situation where the future pricing will be set by the price in Europe," he said.

European carbon prices have already collapsed and appear likely to stay low for at least the next four years while the 27 European Union member states agree on measures to undo a glut of carbon credits.

The Continuing Demise of Global Warming Alarmism-Heinz Lycklama

To Parties Interested in Global Warming Truth,

My article on "An Independent Analysis of Global Warming" was first published in May 2009, with the last update on May 24, 2011.
My conclusion then was that human activity resulting in increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not explain changes in the earth's climate.
The conclusion was backed up by more than 125 technical references.

Reef of contention

Click here to read this opinion piece by Glenn Winsen, published in the Townsville Bulletin 19 July 2012

Subject: the Great Barrier Reef:


The new global currency Carbon credits - to control YOU

First I should clarify, my name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle . I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.

Rodney Hide: Trading scheme is a scam

By Rodney Hide

5:30 AM Sunday Jul 15, 2012


Lucy Lawless should stop protesting.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark declares me a denier, actor Lucy Lawless says I'm whacko and political columnist Chris Trotter wants to charge me with treason.

Phew. All because I say out loud what most Kiwis think: New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a scam and a waste. The ETS taxes our elderly trying to heat their homes and then uses the revenue to subsidise multi-national Japanese companies. These companies bought forests in New Zealand. Their trees are now subsidised because they suck up CO2.

And the reason for the money-go-round? To cool the planet. Even ETS architects say it won't make a difference. So it's a scam. And a waste.

I know I shouldn't say it. I will now suffer worthy souls lecturing me until they're blue in the face and I'm again bored rigid. You know the drill. The science is settled. Yada yada. Some extraordinary number of scientists have reached consensus. Blah, blah.

It all moves me not a jot. Science is not religion. It's not politics. Science is never settled and truth isn't decided by voting.

Besides, I've already survived innumerable environmental scares. We didn't run out of oil as was scientifically predicted when I was at school.


Subscribe to RSS - Members' Contributions
Error | Climate Realists


The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.