Archive for July, 2008

Baker goes Biblical on Barack


A splendid satirical piece about the Barack Obama phenomenon, by writer, Gerard Baker:

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
(Here are afew excerpts)

… He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.

… For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

… And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

… And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

… And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over ….

If only that includedthe media infatuation.

Report This Post

Dihydrogen Monoxide and other dangers


Below,are 3 YouTubes of the 2003 Penn & Teller: Bullshit! show titled: Environmental Hysteria, (Season 1, Episode 13) including their highly successful petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (i.e. H2O… i.e.Water).

[youtube=] Part 1 of 3

[youtube=] Part 2 of 3

[youtube=] Part 3 of 3

By the way, Penn Jillette of “Penn& Teller” is a research fellow at CATO Institute.

According to “This gives Penn Jillete a conflict of interest when it comes to any topic that might require government regulation.”

Report This Post

Anna Blainey: Workers to feel pinch and deliver knock-out punch to Greens – Not Big Bad Big Business

[photopress:anna_blainey_and_her_dad_geoffrey_blainey.jpg,full,pp_image] Dr Anna Blainey about to marry Timothy Warner.
Pictured entering the Church with her Dad, Professor Geoffrey Blainey.

Australian Historian, Dr Anna Blainey, wrote to me the other day:

It’s interesting – the global warming advocates have always claimed that the only people who have any reason to object to global warming reduction measures are those who make profits from fossil fuels, “big oil” etc.

The idea is that anyone else would welcome a carbon tax (or emissions trading or whatever) with open arms.

The fact that you can’t punish “big oil” or “big coal” without hurting their employees and consumers – and the employees of their consumers! – is never mentioned!

When the general public feels the pinch of high energy and transportation costs, and the protests come from the working people and not just the energy tycoons, the greens are going to have drop the pretence that they’re the big daring champions of the underdog fighting big bad big business.

That’s when things will really start to unravel.

The places where fossil fuel taxes (or emissions trading) might have a less drastic impact [on working people] are those which have a cheap alternative energy already in place eg, France and Sweden who have most of their energy already coming from nuclear power.

However, Australia is not one of those places.

Report This Post

John Pasquarelli: Big Brother’s big bucks for Global Warming cargo cult


In an email to the media, Australian Artist and controversial political commentator, John Pasquarelli, provides a quick-fire overview of the multi-level madness that is today’s Global Warming hysteria:

Where will it all end?

Big Brother is now bombarding us with dramatic climate change ads,red “P” plates in Victoria [Australia] are now green, footballers are driving hybrid cars,celebs are out there doing their “green” thing and primary school kids are being scared witless about global warming by their teachers.

Radio talkback and letters to the editor pages clearly indicate that “Joe Blow” and his mates are totally confused and seriously concerned about what lies ahead.

Watching an economist recently on “Lateline” explaining emissions trading left me embarrassed at my inability to comprehend! [Like this one? Or this one?]

The billions spent globally so far on espousing the apocalyptic predictions of global warming explains the involvement of so many scientists and large chunks of the media- this stuff is big bucks and makes New Guinea cargo cults and Nigerian scams look pretty small beer.

Being a sceptic attracts ridicule and even vilification and we are where we are without a proper and balanced debate. The man who was so drunk has left Penny Wong carrying the can on this one but the penny won’t really drop until those big domestic power and water bills come rolling in.

While we dither, it’s business as usual for China and India.

Report This Post

Feel the Obama thrill running up your leg


Watch the new John McCain campaign video giving us a sample of how the mainstream mediaisbarracking for Barack Obama.

And here’s a bit Michael Jackson and The Jacksons with “Can You Feel It?” ….


Report This Post – Running about like a chicken (little) with its head cut off

Since Physics & Society invited a SCIENTIFIC non-politicized debate on Global Warming, the American Physical Society has been running around like a Chicken Little with its head cut off.

I’ve got a plane to catch, so can’t share my observations with you at present, but here’s something which will give you an inkling of how Yellow the Green APS has become.

Benny Peiser, Editor of CCNet has circulated the following letter from Christopher Monckton to the American Physical Society.

CCNet Xtra – 19 July 2008 — Audiatur et altera pars


The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American Physical Society. Christopher Monckton’s paper together with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:

The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:

Benny Peiser
Editor, CCNet


19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.

By email to [ ... ] Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity – a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,


In the meantime, Steve Milloy of has offered to purchase Physics & Society and poses a few questions to them.

July 18, 2008

Arthur Bienenstock
American Physical Society

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

I am writing to inquire about purchasing the newsletter Physics & Society from APS. I very much appreciate the difficult position in which the newsletter has recently placed APS.

The newsletter wants to conduct a public scientific debate on global warming, while the APS’ seems to not be able to run away fast enough screaming, “The debate is over! No debate allowed!”

I would like to relieve you of the burden of this intolerable nuisance publication. What nerve… imagine wanting to debate science! You wouldn’t want to risk your reputation with that.

Please let me know what the price is.

Finally, to purge APS of the undesirables who are out of lockstep with the organization’s position on global warming, you may want to compare your membership list against the 31,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s petition rejecting global warming alarmism. (See )

Maybe you could conduct your own Nacht der langen Messer.


Steven J. Milloy

Gotta fly!. Literally! Bye.

Report This Post

Heading to the USA – Offline for a few days

My wife and I are flying to the USA in a few hours, so I’ll be offline for a few days. Probably until Tuesday.

We’ll be staying in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Returning to Melbourne, September 04.

Bye for now. :-)

Report This Post

The sense to do nothing? Thank the poor!

[photopress:Manmohan_Singh_and_George_W_Bush_1.jpg,full,pp_image] Indian PM Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush

Foreign Affairs commentator, Greg Sheridan, in The Australian today:

There is so much theology in climate change it makes your head spin.

… But I am, like Catholic Archbishop of Sydney George Pell, a modest sceptic, open to evidence.

There isn’t all that much evidence around.

… I think the big developing countries are not going to do anything to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They may cut the rate of growth of emissions, but that is all.

[ ... ]

Earlier this year I had the pleasure of interviewing Kapil Sibal, India’s Science Minister. I asked him about greenhouse gas emissions, which are rising very rapidly in India.

… He pointed out that India’s per capita emissions were much less than those of all Western countries and concluded: “This is really a non-issue for India.”

Recently India has released its own climate change action plan. It contains absolutely no targets or binding actions at all.

Every Indian development paper I’ve seen for many years has talked about the need to increase the energy intensity of India’s economy.

[ ... ]

China is building better than one coal-fired power station a week and every few months adds the equivalent to the entire Australian economy’s emissions.

[ ... ]

Europe’s political leaders, the Elmer Gantrys of public eco-moralising and private pleasuring, have produced a carbon trading scheme that has not resulted in one zot of decrease in greenhouse gases.

[ ... ]

If Australia were serious about this greenhouse business, the first thing we would do is sell uranium to India to encourage it to move from coal to nuclear power.

I have a lot of faith finally in the pragmatism and common sense of the Rudd Government, its senior ministers and the federal bureaucracy. They have no mandate to destroy the Australian economy by moving vastly in advance of the rest of the world, which is going to do very little indeed.

No one, in fact, is acting as if this were really a crisis.

Still, a lot of harm, say in discouraging foreign investment in the Australian energy industry, could be done inadvertently.

I suspect, nonetheless, that we will speak loudly and carry a very small stick. Good thing, too

Report This Post

The Courage to do Nothing? Good Lord!

[youtube=] Excerpts from “Apocalypse? No!”

Global Warming Skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, has published an article in Physics & Society, titled “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” in which he exposes step-by-step the incredibly sloppy methodology used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support its case for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

After a quite thorough technical demolition job, Lord Monckton concludes:

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible.

Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming.

Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record.

Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking.

Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines.

Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue.

Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate.

Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them.

Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong.

If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated.

There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001.

Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all.

At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything.

The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

[youtube=] Part 1: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

[youtube=] Part 2: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Report This Post

Human Headline Headbutts Chicken Little

[photopress:derryn_hinch_3AW_Melbourne_Australia.jpg,full,pp_image] Derryn Hinch joins the Andrew Bolt school of global warming skeptics

A couple of days ago Derryn Hinch (Radio 3AW Melbourne, Australia – nicknamed “the human headline”) declared that he now considers himself a global warming skeptic.


I’ve been coming round to this opinion for some time. The thought that just maybe, perhaps, no dammit! I’ll say it: The Emperor has no clothes.

I’m talking about global warming and carbon footprints and the emission trading scheme. And I have joined the Andrew Bolt school of sceptics.

… We have been swept along by the Ruddster (Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd) and if you challenge any of the dogma you are either an imbecile or a selfish, materialistic environmental Nazi who doesn’t give a fig about the future of our children and their children’s children.

… One Garnaut sceptic is the New South Wales Labor Government Treasurer, Michael Costa. He says “Chicken Little’ warnings about the dangers of climate change are no substitute for a rigorous economic and scientific debate.

… It is true we are being flooded with the economic arguments. But what about the scientists?

On The ABC the other day Prime Minister Rudd said that we must put a cap on the carbon pollution we put out into the atmosphere because if we just keep letting it rip, then the planet gets hotter and hotter and hotter.

And yet a meteorologist of 35 years experience told me carbon is not a gas … Carbon dioxide is a trace minor greenhouse gas in the greenhouse effect that controls the heat exchange of the planet.

He says water vapour primarily controls the earth’s heat exchange. So “when 99% of commentators talk about co2 as the key heat valve
you are seeing profound and basic misunderstanding of what it is all about.”

That’s why I want to hear more from the scientists and less from economists and politicians who have vested interests. And if that makes me a Doubting Thomas. Well, I can live with that. And sleep at night.

The next day Derryn Hinch spoke further on this with New Zealand’s Newstalk ZB, Larry Williams. Click here for mp3.


Some excerpts from my transcription …

Larry Williams: … Global Warming skeptics are starting to come out of the woodwork.

Derryn Hinch: … they’ve had so much hammering from the … gloom-and-doom-sayers and what we call the Chicken Little Brigade … last week we had the Garnaut Report … and he’s saying Kakadu could be gone in fifty years and the Great Barrier Reef and everything … now some of the … scientists are saying hang on, let’s look at Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is not a major Greenhouse gas. … Water vaporizing is the main thing to do with temperature …

… you had the G8 [meeting] in Japan who have now said they will aim at a 50% reduction in [carbon] emissions before 2050. But Australia is going for [significant emission reductions by] 2010. That’s only 18 months away …

Larry Williams: … Australia a bit like us [New Zealand] [is contributing] … very minute emissions … it all comes from other countries … They’re saying [i.e. the G8] … half emissions by 2050, I saw that, but it won’t happen, will it? The developing countries – China, India – they won’t have a bar of it.

Derryn Hinch: China and India are virtually saying, When we get our emissions up to what you’ve been doing for the last 50 years then we’ll look at it. But … we’re not going to wreck our economies and out own industrial revolution – that you all had – just to keep you happy.

It’s a selfish attitude but I can understand where they’re coming from.

Larry Williams: … there’s something like 30,000 scientists who disagree with what’s going on here, but they are called “deniers”.

Report This Post