Monckton’s litany

  • Canute couldn’t stop sea level rising. Officials can’t stop it either.
  • Even if global temperature has risen, it has risen in a straight line at a natural 0.5 °C/century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder Minimum, long before we could have had any influence (Akasofu, 2008).
  • Even if warming had sped up, now temperature is 7C below most of the past 500m yrs; 5C below all 4 recent inter-glacials; and up to 3C below the Bronze Age, Roman & mediaeval optima (Petit et al., 1999; IPCC, 1990).
  • Even if today’s warming were unprecedented, the Sun is the probable cause. It was more active in the past 70 years than in the previous 11,400 (Usoskin et al., 2003; Hathaway et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005).
  • Even if the sun were not to blame, the UN’s climate panel has not shown that humanity is to blame. CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth more of the atmosphere today than it did in 1750 (Keeling & Whorf, 2004).
  • Even if CO2 were to blame, no “runaway greenhouse” catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian era, when there was ~20 times today’s concentration in the air. Temperature was just 7 C warmer than today (IPCC, 2001).
  • Even if CO2 levels had set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years, temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
  • Even if the planet were not cooling, the rate of warming is far less than the UN imagines. It would be too small to cause harm. There may well be no new warming until 2015, if then (Keenlyside et al., 2008).
  • Even if warming were harmful, humankind’s effect is minuscule. “The observed changes may be natural” (IPCC, 2001; cf. Chylek et al., 2008; Lindzen, 2007; Spencer, 2007; Wentz et al., 2007; Zichichi, 2007; etc.).
  • Even if our effect were significant, the UN’s projected human fingerprint – tropical mid-troposphere warming at thrice the surface rate – is absent (Douglass et al., 2004, 2007; Lindzen, 2001, 2007; Spencer, 2007).
  • Even if the human fingerprint were present, climate models cannot predict the future of the complex, chaotic climate unless we know its initial state to an unattainable precision (Lorenz, 1963; Giorgi, 2005; IPCC, 2001).
  • Even if computer models could work, they cannot predict future rates of warming. Temperature response to atmospheric greenhouse-gas enrichment is an input to the computers, not an output from them (Akasofu, 2008).
  • Even if the UN’s imagined high “climate sensitivity” to CO2 were right, disaster would not be likely to follow. The peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe (Schulte, 2008).
  • Even if Al Gore were right that harm might occur, “the Armageddon scenario he depicts is not based on any scientific view”. Sea level may rise 1 ft to 2100, not 20 ft (Burton, J., 2007; IPCC, 2007; Moerner, 2004).
  • Even if Armageddon were likely, scientifically-unsound precautions are already starving millions as biofuels, a “crime against humanity”, pre-empt agricultural land, doubling staple cereal prices in a year. (UNFAO, 2008).
  • Even if precautions were not killing the poor, they would work no better than the “precautionary” ban on DDT, which killed 40 million children before the UN at last ended it (Dr. Arata Kochi, UN malaria program, 2006).
  • Even if precautions might work, the strategic harm done to humanity by killing the world’s poor and destroying the economic prosperity of the West would outweigh any climate benefit (Henderson, 2007; UNFAO, 2008).
  • Even if the climatic benefits of mitigation could outweigh the millions of deaths it is causing, adaptation as and if necessary would be far more cost-effective and less harmful (all economists except Stern, 2006).
  • Even if mitigation were as cost-effective as adaptation, the public sector – which emits twice as much carbon to do a given thing as the private sector – must cut its own size by half before it preaches to us (Friedman, 1993).
  • Therefore, extravagant, futile schemes by the State and its organs to mitigate imagined “global warming” will have no more effect than King Canute’s command to the tide not to come in and wet the Royal feet.
  • We must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong. There is no manmade “climate crisis”. It is a non-problem. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Address by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the Local Government Association, Bournemouth, 3 July 2008. Thanks to Dr Benny Peiser’s newsletter where this was first published.

References: Many of the references are spelled out in full in Monkton’s recent article in the letters of the American Physical Society.

30 Comments

  • Dr. Thomas Gough wrote:

    “At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
        George Orwell

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.    The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequencies of the lie.

    Goebbels

    (The economic consequencies are beginning to be seen.  TTG)

    I wonder how long it will be before the main stream media finally realises that their interest would be better served by exposing the whole sorry affair. 
    Thank goodness for Monckton, Christopher Booker and a few others.

  • Norman Ferguson wrote:

    I’ve been actively studying glogal warming news for two years now and your last paragraph is possibly the most pertinent item I’ve read.

    We owe a great deal to all those who valiently fight this idiocy, but I feel we are attacking on the wrong flank.  The remainder of your comments point the direction we should be taking.  Media has been silenced and we now learn that Wikipedia edits out material that doen’t fit the religion.

    For all the huge amount of work that Viscount Monckton has churned out, I rather think that Terry Wogan’s tiny collumn in the Daily Telegraph gets through to more people.

    Perhaps a prominent half page from Terry including a graph of ‘79 to July ‘08 might achieve more and quicker

    Gore does not control the press as Goebbels did (at least I hope not!), so bringing him down on this issue should really be a piece of cake>

  • Norman: I think Monkton’s writings are important because they carry weight with people who think about these—- still some what abstract (because nothing much has happened)—- policy issues.

    We have to thank goodness (as Thomas says) for his work because his is now a rare species: independent scholars not yoked to grants and received wisdom.

  • Aqua Fyre wrote:

    We need Lord Christopher Monckton to come down to Australia and knock some sense into Labor the Liberal party.

    Instead of playing catch up politics, they (the Liberals) should be standing on their hind legs and denouncing the so called man made global warming for what is is…

    Utter Fraud.

    I used to be a long time labor supporter, but no more…

    Labors’ embracing of this carbon cult like policy has finnaly turned me away. This idiotic Carbon trading, will end up doing more to harm the average working family in this country than any other sort of workchoice legislation.

    There was time that the labor party actually helped the poor and the down trodden, but now, they’re too obsessed with being seen to ‘politically correct’ on the world stage, to worry about pensioners, disabled and workers will survive..

    Little wonder Rudd is being dubbed The New Emperor Ming”…

  • Aqua: That’s a great idea, to compare the impact of an ETS and Workchoices on ordinary families. I’d like to see if I can find some estimates. Do you know of any?

  • Aqua Fyre wrote:

    Peter, sadly, I am not an economist. but the comparison is something that the Liberals should use as a stick to beat over the heads of the Kevin (Emperor Ming)  Rudd & Co..

    In the meantime. I have been in touch with Lord Monckton. who recently shared in the Nobel prize along withthe rest of the IPCC.
    However, unlike the many flaky sycophants and scientific yes~men that make up that vile ‘corpus delicti’; he has staunchly and bodly attacked them for their adherance to junkscience.. 

    In his reply to me, he added a copy of a letter he wrote to Senator Penny Wong.

    In consequence, he has given me permission to pass his letter around the internet…and you are likewise free to pass it on to like minded individuals.

    It is reproduced in full below…

    ………………………………………………………………………………………….

    ““Many thanks for your enquiry.

    This is a message that, at the invitation of one of your compatriots, I wrote to Senator Wong two days ago.

    It is now being widely circulated among the Opposition: do feel free to circulate it still further. – M of B

    FROM THE OFFICE OF THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

    Dear Senator Wong –

    Greetings from Scotland! One of your constituents, has asked me to drop you a short email about emissions trading and “global warming”.

    I have recently conducted some detailed research into the mathematics behind the conclusions of the UN climate panel on the single question that matters in the climate debate – by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere? My research, published in Physics and Society, a technical newsletter of the American Physical Society this month, demonstrates that the IPCC’s values for the three key parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are based on only four
    papers – not the 2,500 that are often mentioned. Those four papers are unrepresentative of the literature, in which a low and harmless climate sensitivity is now the consensus. Therefore I should recommend extreme caution before any emissions-trading scheme is put in place.

    Such schemes will damage Australia’s competitiveness, perhaps fatally; they are prone to corruption in that they incentivize over-claiming by both parties to each trade and by the regulator; they are addressing a non-problem; and, even if the problem were real (as a few largely-politicized scientists persist in maintaining), adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than emissions trading or any other attempt at mitigating the quantities of carbon dioxide that we are (harmlessly) adding to the atmosphere.

    Therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this or any emissions-trading scheme. I have read the Australian Government’s paper on the proposed scheme, and the science in it is, alas, largely nonsense. Politically, of course, the fatal damage that emissions trading will do to the Australian economy will greatly favour the enemies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus standi to approach you.

    Climatically, your emissions-trading scheme will not make any significant difference.

    There are many other environmental problems that are real: I recommend that the Australian Government should tackle those. As for the climate, it is a non-problem, and the correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Similar warnings are being sent to other legislators worldwide by those of us – now probably in the majority among the scientific community, not that one should do science by head-count –
    who have studied climate sensitivity and have found the UN’s analysis lamentably wanting.

    The UN’s predictions are already being falsified by events: global
    temperatures have been falling for seven years, and not one of the climate models relied upon so heavily and so unwisely by the IPCC predicted that turn of events. If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary – and it will, and sooner than you think – you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever.

    It is, therefore, in the long-term vested interest of your party to think again.

    – Monckton of Brenchley”


    ………………………………………………………

    ….Somehow or other, I fear it will fall on deaf ears…

  • Governments are simply using the ‘climate change’ issue to secure extra funding for themselves by way of taxation. This carbon tax is basically a tax on our very existence. It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with taxes.

    Govenrments rely on taxation for thier power and wealth, therefore why would even the opposition seek to prevent it, after all it will be thier money one day as well. This is purely a means of stealing money from us, and eventually enslaving us. Rudd will be offering up this extra revenue to put towards his global government, next will be a global water tax, wait and see. we’ll be told it is to subsidise 3rd world development when really it is all going to be used to subsidise an elite, global, ruling class.

  • one more point, has any one asked them why they changed the name of thier cause from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’. Answer, climate change can be absolutely anything, warmer, colder, windier, calmer, dryer, wetter. Who ever said that global temps and weather conditions were ever stable in the first place?

    They had to throw out the ‘Global Warming’ mantra because the earth has been in a cooling phase for a decade or so.

    Why do all Left Wingers see themselves as a cut above on the intellectual scale yet they swallow everything without question…scary.

  • Greetings

    I am a trained scientist.

    I do not hold to man made climate change because it is not “true science”. True science has to do with what can be actually observed and measured, and what we have observed and measured indicates that the evidence is not there for man made climate change.

    At Flinders University we found upon examination of the actual data that there is no demonstrable basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change.

    There are other scientists at Flinders (Professors in Chemistry and Physics) who hold this conclusion, because it is based only on the facts that we can observe.

    The “Climate Change” Red-Herring” has only ever been the principle vehicle by which “Global Warmists” in government have sought to set up a one world central dictatorship. this is its principle purpose, with the added benefit that is a convenient excuse by which we may all be further taxed.

  • The one world government is going to happen!! it will look like a good thing but IT ISNT!! Everyone will be deceived. Signing the treaty will sign away our freedom and it will NEVER be able to be taken back. This will also start a one world religion and the pope will be the head of it most likely, believing himself to be another Christ. The world is full of free masons!! even then pope’s cathedral has freemasonry symbols in it. Watch the Total onslaught series by Walter Veith!!

  • Hi Guy , could you please prvide more links to papers proving your ideas , Iam looking for evidence from both sides , i can find plenty of papers research disproving other cuases for CC (sun sunspots , cosmic rays etc ) . Also from reading forums websites it seems Ppl enjoy taking the contrary view just to show how much they are not part of the pack , they denied all research showing any link to CO2 and warming as dodgey . why are some scientist right and some wrong , I see this on both sides and the debate is being sidetrack by conspiracy theorist about one world goverment that one being going for as long as i can remember and its still no closer .

    Col At Flinders University you make a post stating from your observations you can find no evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change could you link any of these studies ? On pro Anthropogenic Climate Change website if they make statement like that they will add links .
    we need you to do that so we can compare and read otherwise your statement is worthless .

    thanx Daved

  • Be encouraged – the truth will prevail.
    In the words of others, The plight of the world we see, is a graphic demonstration that there is a set of principles of truth beyond the mind of man – and that man has shaken his fist at that truth and has invented his own version of utopia which flies in the face of that truth.
    No wonder things go awry.
    The leaders of the world (those who wish to inflict this utopia on all people whether they want it or not) are either blind, stupid or despotic.  And if generally educated people like you and I can even entertain this question from our rather obscure observations, then I think that blind and stupid are probably not the issue here!
    The Copenhagen treaty is, no doubt to my mind, a push for international control over the freedoms we – in the Western Christian world, have deliberated for, and fought and died for, for well over a thousand years.
    On November 11th, only a few weeks ago, we respected one minute’s silence for those who have been prepared to die for our freedom (and many did die).
    And yet, our leaders are willing to throw all that away, for appeasement to a world dictatorship, and abandon our freedoms to the control of a hand full of people we never elected?
    Oh God, how low have we come?
    Be vigilant my friends, don’t let Rudd do it.
    Complain until they want you to just shut up!
    Talk to your ‘representatives.’

    Regards
    Terence

  • Ian Seton wrote:

    We must protest far more volubly and openly against the introduction of this ETS / CPRS.
    Federal Opposition ALSO has no idea of how useless and harmful it will be.
    One way to drill sense into the debate is to buy a full-page davertisement in the main Australian newspaper The Australian and repeat it ongoingly, but with sensible variations each time——say weekly.  Include cartoons ridiculing the whole thing.  But be very careful ! Get Monckton or Lindzen or Carter ro vet all final details before submission.  And beware of infiltration by carbonistas.  Cost will be peanuts if thousands of us contribute via Paypal—-say $10 or less each. If we can kill this madness, Australia will truly “lead the world”—-.  But another warning—- ours must not be a “Do Nothing” policy—while nothing needs to be done about AGW, the Coalition must forge ahead with hundreds of other environmental things—-conbat degradation of air, water, land, and sea.  Give real incentives for research in renewable energy (tidal, geothermal, solar etc——nuclear is not renewable of course), worlwide search for real engineering expertise in improved ways to desalinate seawater—-and so on. 
    Writing letters to Canberra seems to be useless—-so any takers for this “full-page advert” idea ??? Volunteers with the organising expertise and time ?  Write to i j s e t o n @ w e s t n e t . c o m . a u (but with no spaces , of course)

  • unfortunately guys, it is inevitable, why would the coalition, or any govt. stop it? it is extra income for them! extra power! any business will try to increase its revenue by any means possible, why would a government be any different. and terence, don’t romanticise about fallen veterans and bygone eras etc. the same forces that sent those diggers out to their deaths in the name of ‘freedom’ are the ones that are trying to enslave us today. dig a little deeper in your history books and you’ll see that none of those wars were ever about such lofty notions as freedom and justice. wars are always waged because thier is wealth and power at stake.
    just amazes me that so many australians are actually screaming for this tax to kick in, it is a very scary omen for the future that we are surrounded my so many that are so ignorant.

  • Yes Matt, I agree about the causes of war.
    (aka. Anthony Sutton, C.H. Douglas, Cpt. Ramsay, E.D.Butler, etc.)

    Forgive my romantic ‘episode’!

    However, please be careful with that word “inevitable”!
    Captain Ramsay, in his book

  • Mark Imisides wrote:

    For Daved:

    “On pro Anthropogenic Climate Change website if they make statement like that they will add links “

    Yes, they do, but the links don’t actually contain any evidence of AGW, only ever unsubstantiated claims with links to other unsubstantiated claims.

    In terms of “proof” it is difficult to disprove a negative. If, for example, I said that I believed in Leprechauns, would you be able to prove that they didn’t exist.

    All the sceptic can do is to provide information that is inconsistent with the proposal in question (as Monckton has done above).

    The onus is on the warmists to prove that CO2 causes warming, and they have not yet done so.

    Mark

  • Sadly I must admit that John Howard was correct in his scepticism of the global warming scam.
    However I must admit that I selfishly would have still voted against him because of his industrial relations,..ahem,..reforms. If I was a voter i.e.
    My my how easily we are led to the slaughter.

  • This is some of the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever read. If you folks had the courage to accept the reality about human made climate change, you would actually try and do something about it. Nice work on your distortions, lies and selective blindness so that you don’t have to change anything. The evidence is overwhelming, and you’re being contrary out of comfort. Deal with it.

  • Dear All,

    I am involved in the Lord Monckton tour of Australia 2010.  We now have completed tour dates.

    Anyone interested in details on any of the tour locations can contact me via email Leah2604@gmail.com and I will email out the flyer to them for their location. 

    Ticket prices range from just $2 to $20 depending on hire costs of the venue. 

    It was particularly important to Lord Monckton’s supporters and to Lord Monckton himself, that prices be kept to a minimum in order for as many Australians as possible to see this speaker, on such an important matter.

    Whether you are for or against, take the opportunity just to “listen”. 

    One thing that is obvious is that there is far too much controversy, which is growing daily with new reports of “doctored” data etc, for our government to be making such a vital decision to give away our tax payer dollars (I’ve seen figures of $4550 per year per tax payer) on something unproven.

  • to the anonymous above who writes about how ridiculous we all are. can he/she please explain to us how a consumption tax is going to help the environment? are we going to use less electricity? are we going to eat less food? are we going to cunsume less of anything? the answer is no and your govt.knows this, that is why they are taxing us, simply to raise revenue, its a simple fact and if you knew anything about govt’s you would see this for what it is.

    or if taxation is a bit too confusing for you, think of it this way, think of it in terms of freedom and liberty. my wife and i are about to have our second child, this child from the moment it is born, to the day that it dies, will be subject to this consumption tax. what right does any govt’ have to decide that just because a human being is born in a particular country, that it should become an immediate source of tax revenue? it’s abhorrent, evil and it sickens me that my unborn childs liberty is already diminished because of this proposed legislation.

    and for your info. i live in sydney but i also own a large farm, that uses no electricity, partakes in no agricultural activity and stores its own water, so i guess someone like you would say that it leaves a ‘negative carbon footprint’ or some such other contrite classification.

    so you see, i could almost guarantee that i am doing much more for the environment than you ever will.

    look at the ETS/CRPS and see it for what it is, it is a new all encompassing tax on the masses, it is revenue raising at the expense of our quality of life and liberty.

    unfortunately in Australia a large % of the population fail to realise how insidious and manipulative governments are. a lot of people genuinely belive that govt. is serving in our best interests, and that is where the danger lies.

    matt

  • Matt

    if all we are worried about is that the ETS is a tax on the masses why are we not so indignant about all taxes especialy the GST which IS a tax on everything not just carbon .

    The attack on “our quality of life and liberty ”

    I dont see it as such I see as a opportunity to mve away from using carbon intensive resources by moving to solar panels and eventually electric cars charged from those panels .

    the oils going to run out anyway might as well be ahead of the curve .

    and as for your farm well your fortunate to be in a position to afford such a thing , the smug cloud is just pouring from you with that statement , just a hint .

    Dave

  • this take on Monckton’s tour of Australia makes more sense:

    http://www.towerofturtles.com/08_Monckton_Tours_Australia.html

    You realise that all the stuff he’s preaching, and that you’ve listed above, is either made up or proven wrong, right? Come on, take a look at the evidence.

  • As an Environmental Scientist who majored Geoscience as an Undergrad and Mineral Resources as a Postgrad, I find it somewhat disturbing that Australian Universities are now attempting to punch out a generation of pseudo-scientists in the form of Environmental Managers who religiously worship at the alter of anthropogenic climate change. The study of real Science, the development of hypothesis and theories, together with peer review are and should continue to be a core value of how we operate.
    It seems many Universities in Australia who offer Degree level education and training to Environmental professionals have been overun with left wing philosophers and green fanatics who have been appointed as Lecturers and Department Heads. I have heard some of these people speak, read course materials and noted the doomsday messages they spruik. What happened to Science?

  • http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
    just see how accurate Monckton is about the use of DDT , if you believe this guy you will believe ANYTHING

  • @matt The ETS and other similar schemes work by making the emission of CO2 by industry progressively more expensive, and therefore less desirable. The money raised by the ETS doesn’t simply evaporate, it will be re-distributed by the government to encourage non-polluting approaches to business and minimize the costs to individuals.
    Of course it is implicit that the benefit to the environment, the only one we have, is that putting an upper limit on atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only means by which we can limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change.
    If you don’t accept that human activity has an impact on the climate, then I would point out that the vast majority of publicly accountable climate scientists disagree with your position:
    http://bit.ly/3cXP4t

    And also that Monckton has been shown to deliberately misrepresent the facts to support his view, and even to fabricate evidence for his own benefit:
    http://bit.ly/16uvGX

    Regards

    Ryan.

  • Hello, I’m new to this site. Just come across it after doing some of my own research on the ETS after seeing a man by the name of Lord Monckton have his say at a press club. I haven’t read all of what’s printed in these web pages, only some. I have also only watched some of thespeech given by Lord Monckton on Austar channel APAC. I am interested in this subject as I am concerned about our planet and how we as humans are doing some bad things to her. I am also an installer of Grid Connect Photovoltaics.
    For a start, unless a person lives and breathes this sort of stuff talked about i.e. whether Climate Change is real or unreal, or Lord Monckton is bullshiting or not, or the Federal Labor Government is bullshiting or not, or the Liberal Party is bullshiting or not, or the Greens Party is bullshiting or not, or MOST importantly, the Media is bullshiting or not. The world is run by the Media and we are all fed whatever the Media want us to watch, read or listen to so who the hell knows if it’s bullshit or not.

    All I want and hopefully many others is for the bullshit to end and constructive changes made to penalise big polluters without us Mum and Dad taxpayers bearing the brunt of huge price increases by them (to recoupe their penalties) and other industry using the ‘Green’ word as an excuse to charge us more for things. Admittedly they might cost a little more but that’s it. Some parts of industry and businesses are using this climate change emotion to rip us all off.
    Stop feeding us spin and misleading information and be fair about your dealings with us.
    It’s no bloody wonder society is like it is at the moment because we are the product of Governments, how they govern, and their policy’s that they implement. Most of us try hard to do the right thing but we are the ones who are made to pay for everything.

    Labor has been in opposition for 11 or 12 years and is now in power but they are on the verge of losing the oportunity to do a decent job because the Liberals are hitting them hard in the polls with their attempts to keep the ETS simple and I fear this will work and get them re-elected. Kevin Rudd maybe the undoing of what was looking like a good change from a long reign by the Liberals but he alone will be the one that loses it for Labor. I hope they pull the pin on the 3rd time round ETS and even, give our deputy Prime the position. Would be Australia’s first woman Prime Minister and could win a lot of votes that Mr Rudd can’t and couldn’t.

    The ETS appears to have elements in it which are ‘unconstitutional’, if you believe Lord Monckton about the farmers land being able to be taken away by the state or Federal Governments, but on the other hand how the hell are we supposed to know unless we spend hours and hours reading everything that is out there in newspapers and the internet and who has got this time? Probably not even 80% of the population.
    Why would Labor take 140 people to Copenhagen? As Lord Monckton said, what a mighty carbon footprint that was and I’m sure they would have had a great time, ate lots of geat food, drank lots of great alcohol etc at the expense of us the taxpayer.

  • i dont subscribe to Moncktons opinions, and i have only ever read the one that is here, to be honest i find his letter a little underwhelming.

    what i can say is that i majored in biological scince at UNSW. one of the first and simplest things we learnt when studying ecology (1st year stuff) was that global temps always fluctuate, up, down, up down etc. temps in the past have been warmer than they are now. when you look at the ‘scary’ temperature rise charts they show you, have a look at both axes and see the scale they use. the x axes invaraiably starts at 1880 (industrial revolution oooohhhh!),and stops just beyond 2000. the y axes is in increments of 0.1 or 0.2 degrees. this makes it look scary, but when put into perspective of millions of years, a 0.6 or 0.8 degree rise in temps over the past 100 odd years IS NOT unusual. in fact if you plot global temps from the year 850AD to current you would actually see that temps are lower, it is just a matter of choosing the right starting point.

    during the medieveil warm period, for example, temps were higher than they are now, and there have been many periods where temps have risen just as quickly.

    does anyone with a scientific mind (or an ounce of common sense) truly belive that global temps should be constant?

    @dave. when other taxes are introduced, they are ‘sold’ to us as taxes. rudd and wong tried to slip this TAX through as environmental salvation. cmon, be honest, you didnt even realise it was, at it’s very core a TAX. At least with the GST, we were told it was a GST…a tax…

    pleeeeease, ryan, are you really going to tell us that allowing governments to redistribute our wealth is a reliable, viable solution. that is laughable, i mean, we are not 12 years old any more, we dont actually believe that our govt’s are honestly acting in OUR best interests do we, god i hope not, that is pure fairy tale stuff.

    and please, can any one give me a legitimate explanation of why our gurus stopped using the phrase ‘global warming’ in favour of ‘climate change’…any one???? some one???? didn’t think so.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003237.html
    have a look at the above link, i don’t subscribe to it or read it i just used it here to show you some graphs, in particular have a look at global mean temps.

  • also @ dave, as far as the GST there is no GST on fresh food, if it was up to ruddy, he would have taxed my family and I on fresh food also, leaving no where to run.

    and with regards to the farm, i was making a legitmate point. were not in a socialist utopia yet mate, so hopefully it’s still OK for people to own stuff?

  • Harry Schello wrote:

    It seems that we are looking every where to find a lie or perpetrate one. Use your brain not your animosity to TRUTH.

    Climate Change has been happening for ever and a day, when this planet was devoid of humans there was climate changes, numerous ones. Read your history books!

    What makes you arrogant little people think that you can change that, by a TAX, or ceasing to use all things modern and go back to your caves.

    Some of you sound like you may have just come out of the trees dragging the knuckles.

    Harry.

  • Oh really do you think iam that stupid that i think the climate should never change and has never changed before of course it has . you talk to us as thou we are children just like the govt , its not that gobal temps should be constant but there a range that they move in and and the trends whether up or down or neutral .
    Harry and so digging up all that carbon that was bury over the course of millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere in the space of 200yrs is not going to have an effect on the climate .
    also Harry why do you insult people “Some of you sound like you may have just come out of the trees dragging the knuckles.” its only form of auguement you use when you have no facts .

    Hey Matt you studied biological “scince” so are you studing the climate now are you doing research in the field ?

    this is all going in circles , there are to many other issues being attached to the debate giving people cuase to deny or ignore what could be valid science on both sides .

    Carl , I think you right over the years I have so many “green ” products come out all riding on the back of climate change fears all to make more money .


    Time will tell as always

Leave a Reply

Your email is never shared.Required fields are marked *