by Viv Forbes www.carbon-sense.com
4 May 2011
We're told we need a carbon tax to combat dangerous carbon pollution.
The public therefore surely needs health warnings on products contaminated by this dangerous "pollutant"?
The bubbles from beer, champagne and soda water are carbon dioxide which contains 27% carbon. If carbon pollution is as bad as we are told, maybe there should be a law banning consumption of such polluting drinks in enclosed areas or public places?
Cane sugar contains a dangerously high 40% carbon, barbeque steak contains 53% carbon and fats and oils contain over 70% carbon. These products should display health warnings:
"This product contains carbon, a declared dangerous pollutant. Use of this product will cause floods and droughts, frosts and heatwaves. Exercise caution when using."
An interesting article which addresses a few of the issues that most have problems with. About time someone pointed out that the believers in global warming in the media, have some responsibility to explain it a bit more.
Dr David Evans’ address in Perth, 23 March 2011.
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings.
I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, I understand the evidence, I was once an alarmist, but I am now a sceptic.
Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying.
This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
Towards a Sane Policy on Natural Disasters
Pastural farming Climate Research- by Robin Grieve
27 April 2011
Livestock emissions continue to track downwards, according to the just released New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory update for 2009. I loathe giving these CO2equivalents any credibility as a unit by using them but that is how methane and nitrous oxide are reported in the NZ Inventory.
Methane produced from livestock when quantified in CO2equivalents was 32810.5Gg (Gg =1000 tonnes) down from 32866.9Gg in 2008.This has been attributed to less nitrogen fertiliser being used and a drop in agricultural output.
Carbon Sense Coalition- 26 April 2011
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed there is more justification for a tax on the emissions of steam from a kettle on the stove than a tax on the emissions of carbon dioxide from the gas stove beneath the kettle.
The Chairman of "Carbon Sense", Mr Viv Forbes, said that neither steam nor carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant, both are essential to life, both are emitted by burning hydrocarbon fuels and both have some effects on weather and climate.
"We expect the government media claque and research mercenaries to parrot the prevailing political propaganda, but surely it's time for the independent media to start promoting accurate language and real science in the global warming debate.
It's time to "speak truth to power".
* Christopher Pearson
* From: The Australian
8 April 2011
TUESDAY's Newspoll gave Labor its lowest two-party preferred vote since
April 2003, when Kim Beazley declared himself a leadership contender when
Simon Crean was in the doldrums.
That result was in sharp contrast to the Newspoll a fortnight earlier, which
had given Labor a two-party lead of two points for the first time in months,
and the Newspoll a month before which had shown Labor at record lows on a
number of measures.
This raised in some observers' minds the question of whether one or more of
those results had been an outlier or rogue poll, beyond the usual margin of
sampling error. Could it be that the early spring in Tony Abbott's step and
also, perhaps, the glint of vindication in Julia Gillard's eye might both
have been unwarranted?
Re: James Hansen, see the attached, I took them from a book, “Eco-Scam”, by Ronald Bailey, published by St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1993, ISBN 0-312-08698-9.
I found this book in the local Hospice Shop, it debunks all the apocalyptic doomsayers predictions.
To access the attachments,
Labour Leader Phil Goff’s statement that the Emissions Trading Scheme forces people to subsidise polluters shows that Labour, like the Greens, is confused about the real effects of the scheme and that they are clearly not ready to govern, ACT New Zealand Parliamentary Leader Hon John Boscawen said today.
“What Mr Goff did not tell New Zealanders is that the biggest effect of the ETS is that farmers, businesses and consumers alike are being forced to subsidise forest owners through higher electricity, petrol and food prices,” Mr Boscawen said.
Submitter name (please insert): Steve W
ACT Deputy Leader and Climate Change Spokesman John Boscawen today questioned how Environment Commissioner Dr Jan Wright could call for a strengthening of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in order to maintain its credibility when the fact is that it has no credibility to begin with.
“For the ETS to have any semblance of credibility the Government must first clarify its purpose and whether that purpose is achievable. There must also be some benchmark against which progress can be measured,” Mr Boscawen said.