July 19 2011, National Press Club debate on Anthropogenic Climate Change (Global Warming)

Lord Christopher Monckton

vs

Dr Richard Dennis

Video 1 of 5 …

Continue reading →

Report This Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

Report This Post

A Greenpeace video legitimizing and instilling the mass-killer’s nihilist mindset.

Not just in children, but in those who can say “we did it for the children”.

The video, including the script, was created by adults. The child appeared with the blessing and approval of his proud parents.

The child incorrectly states that “this Global Warming” is caused by things that grown-ups do.

The child refers to supposed scientific reports which he is unable to understand or assess, but which he states “proves beyond a doubt” the truth of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

“This Global Warming is caused by things you grown-ups do, and by the things you don’t …  I may just be a kid today, but tomorrow will be different …” followed by ultimatums and threats.

I suppose some day this child will be a grown-up and have children of his own. Will those children appreciate the destruction and misery caused by their stupid, brainwashed Greenpeace Daddies and Mummies?

Report This Post

Tim Warner, Prodos, and Dr Alan Moran (a real goddam economist)

After spending so much time on the brain-numbing Greg Lindsay/John Humphreys Carbon Tax, how refreshing to study a real economist!

With some of my own comments and highlighting of points included, here is Dr Alan Moran, Director of the Deregulation Unit, Institute of Public Affairs – speaking and getting grilled at a Senate Hearing on the Rudd government’s proposed ETS.

Must-read Bonus: Senator Doug Cameron (Australian Labor Party) dresses in a Panda suit and gets shot out of a cannon.

Continue reading →

Report This Post

Here are transcriptions of the two videos first presented at my blog post, John Humprheys and Greg Lindsay promote Carbon Tax for Australia

I’m providing these transcripts after coming across a number of misrepresentations of the content I inserted into these videos.

Unless otherwise indicated, indented quotes are of segments inserted into the original video by me.Their exact placement in this transcript isn’t quite accurate since some of the inserted segments rolled out over time while the presentation was going on.

Unless otherwise indicated, the non-indented text is of  John Humphreys (Mannkal Scholar/Research Fellow, with the Economics Programme at the CIS) speaking.

Continue reading →

Report This Post

While starry-eyed supporters of Greg Lindsay and the Centre for Independent Studies  proclaim undying loyalty and admiration for the man who proudly:  “… has NEVER personally taken any position at all on global warming,” Australian  Senator Steve Fielding (Family First Party, Victoria, Australia) has decided it’s his responsibility to now TAKE a position – by first informing himself carefully and rigorously about the “real debate”.

No, not the one about whether it’s better to wreck our living standards with an Emissions Trading System (ETS) – OR – a Carbon Tax.

The other.The REAL “real debate”.

Steve Fielding:

So far I don’t think there’s been a real debate about the science

Shortly after returning from a Climate Skeptics conference at the American Heartland Institute, he wrote in The Australian:

It  seems every Australian has an opinion on the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme. Green groups have been calling for stronger emissions targets while businesses have been pushing for more assistance to be granted to affected industries. Others simply argue that Australia should be waiting until Copenhagen before rushing ahead with any scheme. The one question, however, that no one seems to be asking, is whether or not we even need an emissions trading scheme at all?

… Perhaps CO2 is not the bogeyman of the climate world as many would have us believe.

AAP reports:

Senator Steve Fielding wants to debate the cause of global warming with government scientists before voting on climate change legislation.

Andrew Bolt writes:

… Fielding, an engineer, is now insisting he be shown the proof that the world is even still warming, and the (Australian) Government must at last justify its plan’s most basic assumption.

Its “most basic assumption”? But that’s the one Greg Lindsay and John Humphreys use as their “starting assumption” – cunningly opposing an Emission Trading Scheme for Australia … by proposing a Carbon Tax for Australia. Isn’t it?

With a vote coming up soon on the government’s proposed ETS -  Senator Fielding said:

he wants the science “cleared up” before he decides how to vote.

When a happy-clappy Christian politician makes more sense than a Hayek-inspired free market think tank, it’s enough to makes devout atheists start wondering, what on earth is God really up to?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant

Report This Post

Des Moore: Alternative energy sources will lower living standards

Des Moore, Institute for Private Enterprise, writing on Australia’s Henry Thornton blog

Continue reading →

Report This Post

ARE YOU A MORON?

Do you believe in …

• Global Warming?
• Scientific Consensus?
• The Debate is over?
• Renewables?
• Taxing Carbon?
• Green Jobs?
• CO2 is a pollutant?
• ARE YOU A MORON?

Green Poppycock merchandise @ WeLoveCapitalism.com

A Happy CO2 to you too!

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant

Greens Lie - People Die

A Happy CO2 to you too!

Green Poppycock merchandise @ WeLoveCapitalism.com

Report This Post

Greg Lindsay, Centre for Independent Studies

Below, 2 videos of John Humphreys, Mannkal Scholar and Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS)  promoting a Carbon Tax for Australia.

Greg Lindsay, CIS founder, although not seen in these videos excerpts, is present at this Climate Change Policy roundtable discussion.

The ostensive purpose of the meeting is to argue why a Carbon Tax is better than an ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme).

Achieving CO2 reduction is treated as a “starting assumption”.

The “No Tax – No ETS” position is not discussed.

At odds with Greg Lindsay‘s professed understanding and support of Hayek – and presumably Hayek’s extensive writings on Capital Structure – a “revenue neutral” Carbon Tax is proposed and even lauded as a “no regrets” approach.

This is combined with an “extrapolate the past – accelerate the future” narrative, composed of technological “optimism” mixed together with an interventionist re-definition and usurping of the concept of “the price mechanism” by John Humphreys. The effect is surreal.

The complete, un-edited video of this CIS roundtable can be viewed HERE.

Text comments by me inserted throughout both the following two videos:

Continue reading →

Report This Post

[photopress:Penn_and_Teller.jpg,full,pp_image]

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).

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

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

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

Report This Post

[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

[photopress:john_pasquarelli_02.jpg,full,pp_image]

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

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: LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
——————————————————-

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:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

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

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Benny Peiser
Editor, CCNet

——————-

19 July 2008

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.com

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,

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

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

July 18, 2008

Arthur Bienenstock
President
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 http://www.petitionproject.org )

Maybe you could conduct your own Nacht der langen Messer.

Sincerely,

Steven J. Milloy
Publisher JunkScience.com

Gotta fly!. Literally! Bye.

Report This Post

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.

Part 1: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Part 2: 35 Errors in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

Report This Post