Investment and other financial matters

Archive for December, 2010

If Penny Wong was in TROPICAL Brisbane, she'd spruik global cooling!!!!!

July 29, 2008

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told me that the proof of global
warming – in a decade of no rise in the globe’s temperature – was a
drought in the Murray-Darling basin. But if the Rudd Government thinks
regional changes in the weather are now proof of global temperature,
what does it think this proves:

BRISBANE could be frozen by record low temperatures this week – with the
mercury expected to fall to around zero degrees Celsius on Wednesday.
Last July the mercury dropped to minus 0.1 degrees at Brisbane Airport –
a record low for the Brisbane area.…

Warmest Regards


"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (6)

The Muddled Thinking Of AGW Alarmist Penny Wong

29 Jul 2008

The Age’s business editor, Michael Short, continues his campaign to
counter the religious crusade in the rest of the paper by running
articles countering the hysteria with cool facts. Today he publishes
this fine rebuttal by Professor Bob Carter:

CLIMATE Minister Penny Wong published an astonishing green paper in
response to what she perceives to be the threat of global warming.

The first sentence of the opening section of her paper, entitled "Why we
need to act", contains seven scientific errors – almost one error for
every two words.

Here is the sentence: "Carbon pollution is causing climate change,
resulting in higher temperatures, more droughts, rising sea levels and
more extreme weather."

And here are the errors.

Read on. It’s worth it, presenting so much refreshing good sense, like

To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and

And this:

Fourth, the specific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing
temperature increase is intended to convey the impression that the phase
of gentle (and entirely unalarming) global warming that occurred during
the late 20th century continues today.

Nothing could be further from the truth, in that all official measures
of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining
since at least 2002.

And this in the face of an almost 5% increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?…

Warmest Regards


"From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant
global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not
accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you can’t blame CO2. Then
CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You can’t blame that on CO2.
It’s only been the last 30 years there’s been correlation between CO2
and global warming" Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Water Wasted On Humans!!!

July 29, 2008

Environment Victoria gives Premier John Brumby an excellent solution to
the shortage of irrigation water that is driving farmers broke, and food
prices up:

The Premier appears fixated on water infrastructure projects as the
remedy to over-allocation, climate change and drought. He ignores the
fact that buying back water for the rivers is the only demonstrated way
to boost their flows.

Brilliant. The answer to water shortages is … less water. Just flush
it all into the sea.

The anti-human agenda – the dead baby in the green shopping bag – is
clearer by the day.…

Warmest Regards


"If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are absolutely
certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which might show
that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science. Junk science
happens when scientists believe something based on just some of what
they see."

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Re: Does Peter know what he's talking about?

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp…> wrote in message…
Does Peter know what he’s talking about?
Has Peter ever used a climate model, or looked at its code?

Nah, reality is far more interesting!!!
And the reality is GLOBAL COOLING SINCE 1998, despite what flakey
climate models tell us!!!

Oh , almost forgot ….


  The projections are based on results from computer models that involve

simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully

Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the
accuracy of

the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person’s

interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this


And further:

  Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent

effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes,

biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse spatial

resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on their ability

simulate the details of regional climate change. Future climate change

also be influenced by other, largely unpredictable, factors such as

in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and chaotic variations within the

climate system itself. Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate

to the enhanced greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot

defined. Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled

these projections should be considered with caution.

Warmest Regards


: "They don’t tell you, that, in their computer models, it’s assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It’s garbage in,
garbage out. If you don’t program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Voice Of Dissent Declared Valid

Miranda Devine

July 26 2008

QUOTE: "Although the complainants disagreed with the points made by the
contributors in the programme, they did not suggest that the overall
statements about climate models were factually inaccurate."

QUOTE: Ofcom nitpicked as hard as it could and Swindle emerged virtually
unscathed. I wonder how a Four Corners episode would fare under such

There is something odd about the ferocious amount of energy expended
suppressing any dissent from orthodoxy on climate change. After all, the
climate cataclysmists have won the war of public opinion – for now, at
least – with polls, business, media and Government enthusiastically on

So, if their case is so good, why try so fervently to extinguish other
points of view? There is a disturbingly religious zeal in the attempts
to silence critics and portray them as the moral equivalent of holocaust

Take the British Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle,
which aired on the ABC last year with an extraordinary post-show panel
of debunkers assembled to denounce it. The one program which actually
questioned the consensus on man’s contribution to climate change, it has
been singled out for condemnation and forensic dissection in a way no
other program has, least of all Al Gore’s error-riddled An Inconvenient

This week, the British communications regulator, Ofcom, published a long
report dealing with 265 complaints about perceived inaccuracy and
unfairness in Swindle.

Despite crowing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
ABC and others, Ofcom does not vindicate Swindle’s attackers. In fact,
while it declared itself unable to adjudicate on the finer points of
climate science, it found the program did not mislead audiences "so as
to cause harm or offence".

Further, Ofcom defended the right of Channel 4 and the much-vilified
producer Martin Durkin to "continue to explore controversial subject
matter. While such programs can polarise opinion, they are essential to
our understanding of the world around us and are amongst the most
important content that broadcasters produce." Amen.

Ofcom also noted: "Although the complainants disagreed with the points
made by the contributors in the programme, they did not suggest that the
overall statements about climate models were factually inaccurate."

It identified one factual error – a mislabelled axis of a temperature
graph – which the program had already changed in later versions and
which Ofcom described as "not of such significance as to have been
materially misleading so as to cause harm and offence".

Ofcom nitpicked as hard as it could and Swindle emerged virtually
unscathed. I wonder how a Four Corners episode would fare under such

The two principal complainants, the oceanographer Carl Wunsch and Sir
David King, Britain’s former chief scientific adviser, were found to
have been wronged – but only partially.

King claimed to have been misquoted by the atmospheric physicist Fred
Singer, who told the program: "There will still be people who believe
that this is the end of the world – particularly when you have, for
example, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of
the century the only habitable place on the Earth will be the Antarctic.
And humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to
the Antarctic."

Ofcom found King had not said the Antarctic would be the "only habitable
place on Earth" but "the most habitable place on Earth". Big deal.
However, he had not made the "breeding couples" comment, which was the
invention of another cataclysmist, Sir James Lovelock.

As for Wunsch, Ofcom found the program’s producers had not "sufficiently
informed" him of its "polemic" nature, although they had told him their
aim was to be sceptical and "to examine critically the notion that
recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of
[carbon dioxide]." In any case, after he complained, his interview was

Ofcom dismissed Wunsch’s more serious complaint that his views on the
"complicated" relationship between carbon dioxide and atmospheric
temperature had been misrepresented. But it acknowledged "unfairness" to
him in the way his comments were placed "in the context of a range of
scientists who denied the scientific consensus about the anthropogenic
causes of global warming".

Ofcom also dismissed all complaints about impartiality in most of the
program dealing with science. But it found the final section on Africa
lacked impartiality when it claimed Western government policies "seek to
restrain industrial development [in the Third World] to reduce the
production of carbon dioxide", thus restricting the availability of
electricity in Africa and causing health problems.

As for the climate change panel’s barrage of complaints, Ofcom found the
program makers did not give the UN body adequate time to respond to
allegations it was "politically driven"’ and other claims, but the
audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence".

The Ofcom report (worth reading in full at is an
embarrassment to the panel.

The fact is that, regardless of the definitive pronouncements made by
politicians and economists, the science on global warming is far from

Dr David Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office for six
years to 2005, is one of many insiders who have reversed earlier

"There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause
significant global warming," he wrote this month in The Australian.

Ultimately, the integrity of the scientific community will triumph,
Evans has said. "The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into
the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human
posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is
there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is."

Until then, open debate is important. It is also wise to maintain a
healthy suspicion of the zealots, who insist they have all the answers –
and that Australia, which is responsible for 1 per cent of the world’s
carbon emissions, ought to wreck its economy to prove a point.…



"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate. But that’s the
way we sell messages in this society. We use hype. And we use those
pieces of information that sustain our position." Professor Jerry
Franklin, Ecologist, University of Washington

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

A Complete Comparison Between Indulgences And Carbon Credits

The 21st century Pardoners Tale: A Complete Comparison Between
Indulgences And Carbon Credits

Dr. Tim Ball

July 28 2008

A TELLING QUOTE: Before the company collapsed under the weight of
financial scandal, Enron under CEO Ken Lay was a key proponent of the
cap-and-trade idea

The Pardoner, a seller of indulgences, is a complete and shameless rogue

Geoffrey Chaucer (c.1342 – 1400) is among the giants of English
literature recognized for his perceptive and realistic stories about
human nature. He did this by creating individual characters who were a
broad representation of groups of people. Like Shakespeare, he produced
stories that are instantly recognizable at any time in history and in
any society.  In his most famous work, The Canterbury Tales he
introduces a number of characters traveling together on a pilgrimage. He
does this with what Paul Johnson describes as, " a lethal combination of
satire, irony, and sarcasm."

We recognize almost all the characters even if some do not exist today
such as knights. One we are unfamiliar with, in name at least is the
Pardoner. Johnson describes him as follows, "The Pardoner, a seller of
indulgences, is a complete and shameless rogue; but Chaucer, not content
with exposing his impudence, shows how good he was at his job and how
powerfully he preached against sinfulness.  The Pardoner had also been
taught to use the figure of death to scare his hearers." So the Pardoner
sold indulgences or pardons, hence his name.

If we just had the Pardoner and the tale he told to entertain his fellow
pilgrims it would be interesting, but not expose the true meaning of his
tale and the duplicity and hypocrisy of the character. Hypocrisy is the
one thing people despise in any aspect of life, but especially in
religious and political leaders. Chaucer cleverly provides us with a
prologue in which the Pardoner, as if talking off the record, explains
his activities and motives and exposes his hypocrisy.

We see behind the facade and learn of his cynical view of human nature
and how he exploits their weaknesses and fears for his financial gain.
Here are the opening lines,

"My lords, he said, in churches where I preach

I cultivate a haughty kind of speech

And wring it out as roundly as a bell;

I’ve got it all by heart, detail I tell.

I have a text, it always is the same

And always has been since I learned the game,

Old as the hills and fresher than the grass,

Radix malorum est cupiditas."

He then explains the duplicity of his message against sin and avarice.
He tells how he isolates and personally attacks those who challenge him
without mentioning names. He then bluntly states,

"But let me briefly make my purpose plain;

I preach for nothing but for greed of gain

And use the same old text, as bold as brass,

Radix malorum est cupiditas.

And thus I preach against the very vice

I make my living out of – avarice"

How did he preach against sinfulness?  He explains,

"Well, then I give examples thick and fast

From bygone times, old stories from the past.

A yokel mind loves stories from of old,

Being the kind you can repeat and hold.

Alexander Cockburn in an article titled, "From Papal Indulgences to
Carbon Credits; But Is Global Warming a Sin?" made the comparison
between indulgences and carbon credits. He wrote, Then as now, a buoyant
market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose
capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the
Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners
established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on
sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those
whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits
to others, less virtuous than themselves.

It is a good analogy in many ways, but especially as both create a
source of income for those who identify and define the problem, exploit
the guilt, and offer a solution.  They also do nothing to ameliorate the
supposed problems, the amount of sinning or the amount of CO2 going into
the atmosphere from human sources. In fact, they almost guarantee an
increase in both cases. The analogy fails because sin exists whether it
is a transgression against religious or secular law. CO2 in the
atmosphere from any source including human is not causing global warming
or climate change. More important, it is essential to life on the planet
and it has been demonstrated that an increase in atmospheric levels is
beneficial to their distribution, abundance, and productivity.

There is pathetic irony in the fact that financial gain, if not
necessarily the underlying motive, is certainly the reward of the modern
day pardoners.  Financial gain is one of the unforgivable sins of the
evil energy companies producing the planet destroying CO2.

Undoubtedly, the most effective pardoner of carbon credits is Al Gore.
An Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize are testimony to his effectiveness.
They underline how well he does as Chaucer’s pardoner proscribed.

"Well, then I give examples thick and fast

From bygone times, old stories from the past.

A yokel mind loves stories from of old,

Being the kind you can repeat and hold.

The movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" is full of "thick and fast" examples.
Gore’s appearances on television are a litany of stories from the past
designed to capture through fear and to stick in the mind so especially
the media can repeat them.

Gore was involved early in the establishment of carbon credits a key
part of the Kyoto Accord.

Before the company collapsed under the weight of financial scandal,
Enron under CEO Ken Lay was a key proponent of the cap-and-trade idea.
So was BP’s Lord John Browne, before he resigned last May under a cloud
of personal scandal. In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President
Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop
administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an
international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In his book,
The Green Wave (Capital Research Center, 2006), author Bonner Cohen
notes that the companies expected to profit handsomely from the Kyoto
global warming treaty by creating the worldwide trading network in which
industries would buy and sell carbon emissions credits.

Even though the Kyoto Accord has effectively failed carbon credits, its
most bizarre initiative, has not only survived but also grown enormously
to the financial benefit of its originators at the expense of poor
people everywhere.

Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called
Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the
London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors
in companies that are going green. "Generation Investment Management
(GIM), purchases-but isn’t a provider of-carbon dioxide offsets," notes
spokesman Richard Campbell. (, March 7, 2007) GIM appears to
have considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms
that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and
the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm
in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

And guess who is on the board of CCX but Maurice Strong founder of the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and a very good friend of Al Gore.

Chaucer’s Pardoner personally benefited from selling indulgences.  The
people that can afford to buy them or possibly cheated, except that
their consciences were absolved and they had peace of mind about going
to heaven. Nobody else really suffered.  True, they had to live less
sinful lives to ensure going to heaven, but I am sure the Pardoner would
argue with sanctimony that it was good for them.  It was an argument
made to me recently that even if Gore was not truthful and benefiting
from his actions, the collateral effects of saving the environment made
it acceptable. This illogical thinking is similar to the 1998 quote in
the Calgary Herald by Christine Stewart, then Canada’s Minister of the
Environment that, "No matter if the science is all phony, there are
collateral environmental benefits. Climate change provides the greatest
chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Each Pilgrim in Chaucer’s work had to entertain fellow travelers with a
tale. As Johnson wrote the Pardoner was, "taught to use the figure of
Death to scare his hearers." It is a device that Al Gore uses as with
his most recent threat that we have 10 years left. He also refuses to
debate and interviews are carefully controlled. The Pardoners method is
very similar as he explains.

"or when I dare not otherwise debate

I’ll put my discourse into such a shape,

my tongue will be a dagger; no escape

for him from slandering falsehood shall there be,

if he has hurt my brethren or me.

Here is what J Murray wrote about Gore’s behavior. "Apparently rather
than debating the merits of his argument in a rational and reasoned
manner, Gore is left only with ad hominem attacks and smug condescension
toward his critics. Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says
those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man – among them,
Vice President Dick Cheney – are acting like the fringe groups who think
the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the
world is flat."

The Pardoner’ story has three drunken rioters set out to find and slay
Death.  In a wonderful dramatic twist, Chaucer’s rioters stumble upon an
old man who cherishes Death to escape the weariness of a long life. In
other words, the outcome is exactly opposite to their objective.

What is Al Gore’s story? Well here is what he told Congress in March
2007 in a presentation that broke the rule of having

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (5)

Re: Green Fad Finally Running Out of Gas

"Fran" <Fran.B…> wrote in message…
On Jul 29, 1:38 pm, Peter Franks <n…> wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2:22 am, Peter Franks <n…> wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
> >>> Here in Australia, polls show
> >>> that 77% of the public want the government to do something about
> >>> climate change…
> >> What can the government do about climate change that the
> >> constituents can’t?

> > Negotiate agreements across national frontiers;

> Compulsion.

Collaboration, assuming that the processes reflect the legitimate
wishes of the stakeholders

Collaboration ONLY if you can change human nature!!
But then, you’d have "re-education camps" for this wouldn’t you?
"From each according to their capacity and to each according to their
has NEVER WORKED with humans!
… but works very well with lower order, unthinking animals such as
Just ask Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all your other comrades!

Warmest Regards


". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over
the last 100 years."

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Re: Use less power

"Arumugham" <n.arumug…> wrote in message…

> Try to cook more than one item simultaneously in oven.
> Use wide bottomed vessel while cooking using the top of the electric
> range.
> Microwave ovens consume less energy.
> Use cold washes in your washing machine and dry clothes outside of
> washing machine as far as possible.
> Keep light fixtures clean to get optimum light.
> Visit


Don’t forget to switch off your computer AND KEEP IT SWITCHED OFF!

Warmest Regards


"Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some
intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming
policy." Roger A. Pielke, Professor, Environmental Studies, University
of Colorado

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

AGW Proponents are Exactly Wrong

Mar 2008

1.The Earth is getting colder and this will accelerate.

2.Carbon dioxide has a minuscule warming effect.

3.Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase agricultural

4.The ideal atmospheric carbon dioxide level is a minimum of 1,000 ppm

2008 is the tenth anniversary of the recent peak on global temperature
in 1998.

The world has been cooling at 0.06 degrees per annum since then.

My prediction is that this rate of cooling will accelerate to 0.2
degrees per annum following the month of solar minimum sometime in 2009.

Dr Hansen’s statement that the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere is 350 ppm begs the question of what the actual ideal
level is. I have taken the 1,000 ppm figure from the level that
commercial greenhouse operators prefer to run their greenhouses at.

The ability to grow food is going to be the overriding concern next

Regarding that 1,000 ppm level, we will never get there. Atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the geological past.

But most of that carbon is now bound up in the Earth’s sediments where
we can’t get to it.

Half of the carbon dioxide we are producing now is being gobbled up by
the oceans, in soils and in the Russian tundra.

At best, we might get to about 600 ppm.

Warmest Regards


"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (15)

Doubts About AGW Scam Grow

July 22, 2008

Michael Short, business editor of The Age, continues his assault on the
warming evangelicals running the rest of his paper by publishing yet
another article (this one by Professor Geoffrey Kearsley) finally
telling Age readers the truth about global warming – that it stopped a
decade ago:

There is much more yet to learn. My point is this: It may well be that
human activity is indeed changing the climate, at least in part, but
there is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a
greater role.

If it does have, then global warming is likely to stop, as it appears to
have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails to ignite,
then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate. The next
five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should
wait and see.

Short’s campaign could prove critical to Kevin Rudd’s future. Age
readers are unlikely to have ever heard this heresy before, and will now
be told it’s OK to doubt. What’s more, Short is clearly showing the
Fairfax bosses what a real editor committed to restoring The Age’s
long-dead reputation for open debate would look like. He has put himself
in the running to take over from editor Andrew Jaspan, a global warming
fanatic who has tried ins tead to suppress debate and has just fired the
only conservative columnist (contributer Jon Roskam) on the grounds that
he’s too well exposed. If Short replaces Jaspan and takes The Age off
the global warming bandwagon, already being quietly deserted by The
Australian, Rudd’s hopes of marginalising sceptical scientists and
inconvenient truths will be destroyed. The ABC can’t sell Rudd’s
religion by itself.

But you see, of course, one last hurdle. The Liberals still do not have
the courage of their lack of conviction in man-made global warming. Too
scared by the media, they are going along with Rudd’s insane emissions
trading scheme and the global warming bandwagon. They are refusing to
attack Rudd on his weakest spot. They will thus share with him the
dishonor of having being conned by bad science and salvation-seekers.
They will never be able to say: We warned you. We were right, and Labor
once more wrong.

In short, they lack the courage of Michael Short. And they fail to heed
this warning in Kearsley’s article, which I repeat:

The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances,
we should wait and see.

Liberal MPs: There has been no warming for a decade. Dare to doubt the
theory. Dare to wait and weigh the fresh science. Do not let Rudd drag
you off the cliff with him.…

Warmest Regards


"The question scientists should now be asking is not how much it will
warm over the next 50 to 100 years, but why has it warmed so little
during the major carbon dioxide buildup?" Patrick J. Michaels,
Environmental Scientist , University of Virginia

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments