Former prime minister John Howard has lent his support to a book aimed at school children which argues the theory of human-induced global warming is a scam.
Last night, the former prime minister launched the publication, the latest from controversial geologist Professor Ian Plimer.
The book, called How to Get Expelled From School, rejects the predominant scientific opinion on climate change.
The book is billed as “an anti-global warmist manual for the younger reader”.
Global warming is a scam, rises in CO2 lag 800 years behind temperature rises and CO2 does not control the climate (also the amount of carbon released by humans is negligible compared to nature).
He is the climate change minister who pledged to ‘lead by example’ in the fight against global warming.
But Charles Hendry is facing accusations of hypocrisy after buying himself a 20-bedroom castle – with a potentially massive carbon footprint – as a second home.
Blair Castle in Ayrshire, which went on the market for £2.5million, has three storeys, 16 bathrooms and a heated outdoor swimming pool set in 260 acres of beautiful countryside.
“The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.”
‘Rises in C02 lag 800 years behind temperature rises. So temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years!’
- Prof. Ian Clark
(This was a really nice video, but ALL videos have been removed and http://eclipptv.com/ is gone and this quote is all that is left.)
CO2 is environmentally friendly and global warming and the carbon hype are a scam. Even IF there would be global warming, then CO2 would have nothing to do with it, because CO2 lags 800 years behind rising temperatures! That is a scientific fact and if you watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth (Lie)’ again, then you will see exactly that relation in Al Gore’s fake hockey stick graph:
9 Dec 09 – According to Professor Luiz Carlos Molion, Latin American representative in the World Meteorological Organization, post-doctorate in meteorology, and member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, reductions in carbon emissions will not affect climate.
“Carbon dioxide does not control the global climate,” says Molion. “The climate is very complex and could never be dominated by CO2.
“CO2 is due to increased temperature, says Molion. “When the temperature rises the oceans release more CO2.”
“The amount of carbon released by humans is very small, negligible in comparison with the natural flows of the oceans, soil and vegetation.” Nature launches 200 billion tons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. Man launches only six billion tons.”
“Of all the people here in Brazil, maybe I’m climatologist more senior,” says Molion.
Breakthrough? Scientists said they can produce a fuel that runs jet engines using the same ingredients that make grass grow – sunlight, water and carbon dioxide
Scientists have genetically engineered an organism that secretes diesel fuel wherever there is sunlight, water and carbon dioxide.
Biotechnology company Joule Unlimited claims it can produce diesel fuel and ethanol on demand at unprecedented rates.
Researchers at the firm, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said they can produce the fuel that runs jet engines using the same ingredients that make grass grow.
They also claim to be able to make it in facilities both large and small and at costs comparable to the cheapest fossil fuels.
Joule’s website describes the breakthrough as ‘energy independence’, although many remain sceptical.
Chief executive Bill Sims said: ‘We make some lofty claims, all of which we believe, all which we’ve validated, all of which we’ve shown to investors.
‘If we’re half-right, this revolutionises the world’s largest industry, which is the oil and gas industry.
‘And if we’re right, there’s no reason why this technology can’t change the world.’
CO2 is environmentally friendly and global warming and the carbon hype are a scam. Even IF there would be global warming, then CO2 would have nothing to do with it, because CO2 lags 800 years behind rising temperatures! That is a scientific fact and if you watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth (Lie)’ again, then you will see exactly that relation in Al Gore’s fake hockey stick graph:
And yes, the hockey stick graph is fake and this is so obvious:
And everybody that doesn’t buy this BS invented by the elitists is called a denier!
ONE thing is clear about the carbon tax debate: everything is about to get more expensive – including the Government’s hold on power. There is much argy-bargy about whether or not Julia Gillard’s proposed initial scheme amounts to a tax. Of course it does.
This is the Government’s plan as Ms Gillard has outlined it so far. If this legislation is passed, after negotiations with Greens and independents, Ms Gillard will impose a fixed price on carbon, calculated per tonne of carbon emitted by polluters. That price will take effect on July 1, 2012.
Ultimately, the system will be designed to morph into an emissions trading scheme, where the price of carbon (let’s say it starts at $20 per tonne) is determined by its market value, and everyone can buy and sell carbon permits on that market. So a heavy polluter could buy up permits, thereby allowing it to continue its activities, albeit at a higher cost.
The carbon price will rise or fall like any other tradeable commodity, depending on the level of demand, environmental conditions and the value of other investments such as bonds, currencies and stocks.
‘Rises in C02 lag 800 years behind temperature rises. So temperature is leading CO2 by 800 years!’
CO2 is environmentally friendly and global warming and the carbon hype are a scam. Even IF there would be global warming, then CO2 would have nothing to do with it, because CO2 lags 800 years behind rising temperatures! That is a a scientific fact and if you watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth (Lie)’ again, then you will see exactly that in Al Gore’s graph. (You know, that fake hockey stick graph.)
And yes, the hockey stick graph is fake and this is so obvious:
Electricity bills will have to rise by up to £500 a year to pay for a new generation of environmentally friendly power stations, it emerged.
Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, will outline government plans today to encourage energy companies to develop low-carbon power plants, including nuclear power stations and wind farms.
Energy analysts say the Coalition’s plans will put Britain on course for a “high cost, low carbon” electricity market where consumers pay the price for environmentally friendly generating technology.
Energy companies say that the shift will require them to invest more than £200 billion in new power stations and networks over the next 20 years.
According to uSwitch, the price comparison website, funding that investment will cost households more than £500 a year on top of the current total average energy bill of £1,157. Mr Huhne’s officials dispute that figure and insist that the direct costs of specific government policies will be much lower.
A new consultation will push energy companies into investing billions of pounds in technology, costs that companies say will be passed on to consumers.
A new tax could be levied on fossil fuels such as coal and gas, making them more expensive relative to low-carbon sources of energy such as nuclear and wind power.
Watch an ‘Inconvenient Truth (Lie)’ again (What a horrible thought!) or watch the following video from 2:20 and you will see that CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature rises:
And yes, the hockey stick graph is a fake and it is obvious to anybody:
Redd scheme designed to prevent deforestation but critics call it ‘privatisation’ of natural resources
An aerial view of trees at a forest on Sumatra, Indonesia where millions are being spent to fight deforestation. Photograph: Beawiharta/Reuters
Some of the world’s largest oil, mining, car and gas corporations will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a UN-backed forest protection scheme, according to a new report from the Friends of the Earth International.
The group’s new report – launched on the first day of the global climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, where 193 countries hope to thrash out a new agreement – is the first major assessment of the several hundred, large-scale Redd (Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) pilot schemes. It shows that banks, airlines, charitable foundations, carbon traders, conservation groups, gas companies and palm plantation companies have also scrambled into forestry protection.
While forestry is billed as one issue where significant progress could be made at the talks, over the weekend David Cameron, Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, and the government’s chief scientists all played down the prospect of a global deal to cut carbon emissions.
“British ministers are going to Mexico this week with an approach that is both realistic and optimistic,” the prime minister wrote in the Observer . “Realistic, because we don’t expect a global deal to be struck in Cancun, but optimistic too, because we are viewing this as a stepping stone to future agreement.”
Huhne, who will attend the second week of the talks, was more blunt: “No one expects a binding deal on climate change in Cancun.” But he said deforestation and longer-term climate finance were areas where progress could be made.
The Redd scheme is central to slowing, or halting, deforestation, which causes huge releases of carbon dioxide. But critics say that the scheme amounts to privatisation of natural resources.
FoE’s report shows, for example that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm Shell has linked with Russian gas giant Gazprom and the Clinton Foundation to invest in the Rimba Rey project, 100,000ha of peat swamp in Indonesia. The project is expecting to prevent 75m tonnes of carbon being emitted over 30 years, which could earn the three groups $750m at a modest carbon price of $10 a tonne.
It also says that an investment of little more than $10m by the bank Merrill Lynch, the conservation group Flora and Fauna International and an Australian carbon trading company could generate more than $430m, over 30 years, from a project to protect 750,000ha of forest in Aceh province, Indonesia.
Pretend ruins of fake 12th century Viking church moved to Greenland by Booker, Delingpole, North et al last year in cynical bid to pretend the MWP actually existed
Remember how one of the great ambitions of the Climategate “scientists” was to “contain” the “putative” Medieval Warming Period? Well – guess what – they’re STILL at it.
Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Jonathan Overpeck, Eugene Wahl, Malcolm Hughes – just about anyone who’s anyone from the Climategate emails, in fact – have all been on a clandestine boondoggle to sunny Portugal, there to conspire how best to obliterate that embarrassing and inconvenient period of bounteous warmth between around 900 AD and 1280 AD known as the MWP.
Anthony Watts has the full story. The bit that interests me most is the size of their carbon footprint? And even more so, who actually grant-funded all these shysters to fly to Portugal for their weekend reality-denial fest? And even more, more so if it was us – which of course it was, via our governments, the UN and the EU – why we can’t have our money back NOW.
Wattsy’s site was responsible for another classic this week which you must read if you haven’t already: Willis Eschenbach’s magisterial and hilarious essay Eight tenths of a degree? Think of the Grandchildren! I met Eschenbach at Heartland: terrifyingly loud shirts and an aura of tousled levity and almost childlike sweetness which might give you the impression that he’s just a barmy eccentric. Make no mistake, though, this man is a genius. I’ll reprint the opening paragraphs to give you a taste:
James Hansen and others say that we owe it to our Grandchildren to get this climate question right. Hansen says “Grandchildren” with a capital G when he speaks of them so I will continue the practice. I mean, for PR purposes, Grandchildren with a capital letter outrank even Puppies with a capital letter, and I can roll with that.
In any case Hansen got me to thinking about the world of 2050. Many, likely even most people reading this in 2010 will have Grandchildren in 2050. Heck, I might have some myself. So I started to consider the world we will leave our Grandchildren in 2050.
In a recent post here on WUWT, Thomas Fuller floated a proposal that we adopt a couple of degrees as the expected temperature rise over the century. He says in the comments to his thread that
I think we owe it to the people of the world to give them an idea of how much warming they can expect, so they can plan their buildings, businesses, roads and lives. They matter. They don’t care how much of it is due to CO2 or how much is rebound from a LIA due to forcings we don’t understand. They don’t. They probably shouldn’t.
We have temperature rises that we can almost trust from 1958 that show a trend of about 2 degrees for this century if things go on.
To start with, I don’t think we owe people anything more than the scientific truth as we understand it. And if we don’t understand it, as in the case of what the climate may be like over the rest of this century, we definitely owe it to the people to simply say “We don’t know”. Those three little words, so hard to say … so no, we don’t owe people a number if we don’t have one.
Read the rest here. If you haven’t the time let me summarise his truly scary conclusion: that by 2050 our planet might possibly have warmed by….
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
