Toby’s Sunday Light


Menzies House regular Toby Jug was tasked to decipher the IPCC 5th Assessment and determine how long it would take the world to become a cinder if the population does not turn back the clock to the 8th century BC.

As the deadline approached, it was obvious that the job was too much for poor old Toby. The office hash had gone off for the long weekend, the good whiskey kept for the tax man had vanished, and even the moonshine hidden in the editor’s drawer was no more.

I caught Toby lying in the foetal position, staring glassily at the office budgie named Tony Abbott, and occasionally rousing himself trying to teach the dear little creature to whistle Colonel Bogey.

But, amazingly at the stroke of 11.34 pm he delivered what follows. Apparently, a joint effort with his cousin, Marx Lenin Jug in America. How much is actually his, is impossible to say. GC.Ed@L.

IPCC-CARTOONLast week, when parts of the IPCC’s much heralded “Climate Change Report” were leaked to the press I, as much as any liberal, found myself despairing at some of its findings. No global warming for 16 years; record levels of sea ice; so many polar bears that the UN was proposing a humane cull to limit their numbers; no extreme weather conditions like hurricanes and typhoons – and – worst of all – the computer forecasts were wrong and there was no global warming! I felt like I did when as a child I found out that there was no Santa Claus!

Thank goodness, therefore, for the IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When I was a young boy I remember going to the theatre to see Peter Pan. I, along with the rest of the children, became very upset when Tinkerbell was dying, but Peter Pan saved her life by encouraging the audience to chant along with him, “I do – I do – I do believe in fairies.”

And in like fashion the scientists of the IPCC, when faced with the evidence of their own scientific research that Global Warming was the stuff of fairy tales, simply stood in a circle, held hands and chanted, “we do – we do – we do believe in Global Warming.” And miraculously, just like Tinkerbell, Global Warming was brought back to life.

And thank goodness it was. Unless you are a Liberal or a Democrat you cannot begin to understand what it would mean to live life without Global Warming. It would be like a Christian being presented with undeniable evidence that there is no God – only worse!

The genius of the IPCC is best encapsulated by statistics. 95% of papers written on global warming agree that not only is it happening it is manmade. The beauty of that statistic is that exactly 95% of papers written on Global Warming are written by those who have a genuine liberal conviction that it is happening – as well as a financial interest in perpetuating the splendid liberal myth of Global Warming.

What I find astounding is that 5% of scientists persist in being climate change deniers – in spite of being cast into purgatory for daring to denounce it. Don’t those idiots realise that the correct answer is that not only is Global Warming happening it is manmade? Why do they insist on bucking the trend by carrying out objective experiments and coming to objective conclusions?

It’s the same with journalists. If you want a busy career in journalism you’ve got to be on the winning team. Forget the facts! Stick to the propaganda! Climate change deniers like James Delingpole who approach the subject objectively and cast doubt on the IPCC’s conclusions deserve to be gagged – and his book “Watermelons” deserves to be burned in a modern “sauberung” action against the un-global warming spirit.

If Delingpole had lived in Nazi Germany no doubt he’d have insisted, in his pathetically objective, fact-based, way, on writing articles claiming that Jews were not untermenschen – in spite of the fact that well over 95% of papers written by German scientists on the Jewish question agreed that the Jews were. Like German journalists who cast doubt on the scientific consensus that the Aryan race were superior to the rest Delingpole and other climate change denying journalists would have been shot!

Yet we Global Warming liberals are still forced to suffer objective journalism which casts doubt on what we know to be true in spite of the evidence – that Global Warming is a clear and present danger!

When I first read the news casting doubt on Global Warming I was so upset I needed a stiff drink, so I headed off to New York’s most exclusive bar “Los Americanos” for a cocktail. There were no seats so I stood at the bar and ordered a “Cuzco Humming Bird.” There was a rowdy crowd sitting in the booth behind me so I sipped my drink and listened in to their conversation.

“I’m telling you Elvis isn’t dead,” one of them proclaimed, “he was fed up with being a rock star so he’s re-trained as a scientist and is working at the Area 51 research laboratory experimenting on the alien life forms who crashed at Roswell.”

As a progressive I found these theories strangely compelling and plausible so I walked over and asked if I could join them.

“Pull up a seat Kevin,” one of them smiled, and I took a backward step in surprise as I recognised the man as Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC.

“See if you can settle an argument Kevin,” said one of the other scientists, who I recognised as Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, “Rajendra thinks that Hitler is still alive and living in a condo in Palm Springs with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden – where they are planning to destroy the world by burning fossil fuels around the clock”

“As Hitler was born in 1889 I think that’s highly unlikely,” I replied, “that would make him 124 years old.”

“I told you so,” Katharine scoffed at Rajendra, “Hitler is dead, it’s just Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden who are burning fossil fuels in Palm Springs.”

“Never mind about Saddam and Osama,” I interrupted their scientific musings, “tell me about this so-called evidence that there is no Global Warming.”

“It’s a storm in a tea cup Kevin,” Rajendra replied, “or it would be – if there were any storms.”

“Storm in a tea cup?” I shrieked, “I thought your research had concluded that all of your computer climate predictors were hopelessly wrong.”

“Not hopelessly wrong,” a man I recognised as climate expert Dr John Harte responded, “just wildly wrong. They had predicted temperature increases which would have turned the river Hudson into the river Styx but our revised figures show a possible increase of as much as 2 degrees celsius over the next 10,000 years – if that prediction comes true, and we’re as certain that it will as we were about all the things we’ve got wrong in the past, think of the catastrophic consequences for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren.”

“But what about the fact that we have record levels of sea ice?” I persisted.

“They are not record levels,” Rajendra put me straight, “there was much more sea ice during the last ice age.”

“Okay then,” I played devil’s advocate, “what about the fact that there has been no Global Warming since 1998?”

“We’ve considered that carefully,” Rajendra fixed me with a steely glare, “and approached it on the basis that there is Global Warming and that we need to fabricate evidential theories to explain away the fact that there actually isn’t any.”

“So what have you come up with?”

“My theory is that Global Warming is being swallowed up by the Bermuda Triangle,” Katharine replied, “and the heat is being used for cooking by the citizens of Atlantis.”

“That just sounds silly,” I shook my head.

“Of course I won’t put it that way,” said Katharine, “I’d dress it up in scientific gobbledygook so that people wouldn’t be able to understand me.”

“So what would you say?” I asked.

“That the natural variability of the climate can account for considerable fluctuation in global temperatures year on year, in spite of an overall upward trajectory and over relatively short, non-climate timescales these patterns of natural variability can lead to all kinds of changes in global and regional near-surface air temperature: flat, increasing, or even decreasing trends,” Katharine replied, “and this short-term variability reflects natural patterns of heat and energy exchange between the different components of the Earth’s system. Only over climate timescales do the long-term trends emerge that reflect the influence of changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.”

“Trying to make sense of that,” I said, “you seem to be saying that Global Warming has happened over the last 16 years, but there has been no actual increase in temperature because non-human made natural weather conditions have made the earth cooler and cancelled it out.”

“Precisely,” Katharine smiled.

“And is there any evidence for this?” I asked.

“Absolutely none,” she replied, “but it’s the only pro-global warming theory I could come up with that fits the fact that there has been no global warming for 16 years.”

“Are none of you worried,” I continued to play devil’s advocate, “that the world has spent trillions of dollars to counter the threat of Global Warming, as predicted by your computer programmes, but they have all turned out to be100% wrong?”

“What do you mean wrong?” Rajendra protested.

“Didn’t you predict that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would have melted by 2035?” I retorted.

“Which would of course,” Katharine interjected, “destroy Bigfoot’s natural habitat.”

“And then in a humiliating climb down,” I continued, “you had to admit that you were wrong and that they weren’t melting at all.”

“We were only wrong about the date,” Rajendra protested.

“But isn’t that rather important?”

“People are often wrong about dates,” Rajendra replied, “when Warren Jeffs, the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, predicted from his prison cell that the world would end on December 23rd 2012 and it didn’t he didn’t give up – he simply accepted he was wrong and changed the date of the apocalypse to December 31st 2012.”
“But the world didn’t end then either,” I protested.

“But it will end one day,” Rajendra assured me, “and Jeffs will have the last laugh, just like the IPCC will when the Himalayans glaciers melt one day.”

“So you don’t feel at all foolish,” I asked him, “making unsubstantiated statements that the Himalayan glaciers were melting – based on no evidence whatsoever?”

“Foolish?” Rajendra laughed in my face, “let me tell you something Kevin – I am the director general of a company based in New Delhi called The Energy and Resources Institute. After my claims about the melting Himalayan glaciers the European Union and America paid my company millions of dollars to study the Himalayan so-called melting glaciers – do you think we’re in this for nothing?”

“What do you mean?” I was shocked.

“All of our livelihoods rely upon the international community believing that Global Warming exists,” Rajendra replied, “for decades now we climate scientists have been making out like bandits. You don’t think that we are going to let a small matter like the truth de-rail that gravy train do you?”

“But what if they find out you are a liar?” I asked.

“What do you mean a liar?” Rajendra looked affronted.

“Didn’t you pretend to have two PHD’s,” I challenged him, “when you only have one?”

“I put the fact that I had one PHD into my climate change prediction computer,” Rajendra replied, “and it predicted that I had two.”

“And in 1996 didn’t an Indian High Court conclude that you had “suppressed material facts” and “sworn to false affidavits?”

“Only in the interests of justice and climate change,” he replied, “if I was corrupt it was a noble cause corruption.”

“And didn’t you claim that IPCC reports are the consensus of 4,000 scientists,” I pushed him, “whereas the last one was written by only 1,200 – over two thirds of whom were unqualified first year science students?”

“There’s actually only one 0 difference between 400 and 4,000,” he protested, “you’re just nit-picking now.”

“And didn’t you claim that the IPCC report was peer reviewed,” I put to him, “whereas only 23 out of 44 chapters were – and even those were reviewed by peers who had helped write the report?”

“You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs,” the President of the IPCC shrugged.

“So you accept that you’re a liar?” I put it to him straight.

“We don’t like to use the word liar,” he winced, “we prefer the term liberal climate scientist.”


David Suzuki and Q&A—who conned who?

New MH2

For a long time Q&A with Tony Jones has been seen as just another ABC production of farce at the majority of taxpayers’ expense. And no finer example was the recent waste of one hour in a person’s life was the occasion of Canada’s global warming guru Dr David Suzuki.

Skating skilfully in and out of the ABC’s editorial policy, Q&A claim to have a balanced audience in equal concoctions of Greens, Labor, and Liberals. Even a lobotomised monkey could fool the selection process about their political bent as they do resulting in a predictable majority of salivating hyenas programmed to dine on conservatives before they utter a word.

Not present that night was the customary “ABC balance” of five from the left versus two from the right as the panel was of Jones and Suzuki alone. Bill Gates was the only other guest to enjoy that importance. The subject was Suzuki’s pet income generator, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the mob that assures us that the planet is stuffed and every bastard on it will be broiled alive or drowned in rising seas.


Suzuki, an expert on fruit flies, gave wonderful television entertainment back in the 1960s, but his performance on Q&A was akin to a muddled old moose rutting on the Arctic Tundra. Sadly, his ignorance of the subject was astounding.

Suzuki did peddle the current IPCC mantra that 97% of scientists agree that we are the cause of our impending doom. The IPCC’s new/old/rehashed report claims that 97% of scientists say things are much worse than first thought—the lie is perpetuated.

However, questions will arise for IPCC. According to Christopher Monckton, their data files as of May, list 11,944 reports. Of 4,014 summary reports only 64 of those forecast doom and almost half of those express doubts. We can expect a lot more about this as those who seek scientific truth examine the new 5th Assessment. The IPCC should explain exactly how they arrived at their 97% consensus.

Meanwhile, Q&A’s propping up David Suzuki might have been done without instruction of Suzuki’s past about which many observers question his right to self-acclaimed climate authority and benevolence. Dedicating ones life to saving the planet for fellow man is noble—Suzuki tells us that. But his free reign to spout babble virtually unchallenged on Australia’s taxpayer funded airwaves is wrong and just another reason to question the objectivity and viability of the ABC and or its management.

A few years ago Suzuki insinuated that scientists who did not support his theories were mostly promoting large corporations. When asked the basis of his funding, he complained bitterly that “corporations have not been interested in funding us.” That surprised many as the climate scare doctrine was then in its infancy, and uncheckable data was easily swallowed.

However, the David Suzuki Foundation 2006 annual report listed more than 50 corporate donors that read like the “A” list to Bill Clinton’s black-tie dinner. Microsoft, Toyota, IBM, Bell Canada, Warner Brothers, Canon and the Bank of Montreal are just a few that must have slipped the doctor’s mind.

But, in stark contrast to this Gaia embracing rescuer of all mankind was Suzuki’s acceptance of the donor EnCana Corporation, a big player in oil sand development and natural gas bores. ATCO, the largest gas distributor in Alberta donated, as did the Ontario Power Corporation running several coal-burning generator stations and at least three nuclear installations—Suzuki’s avowed planet-wreckers.

In October 2012 Suzuki told students at the John Abbott College in Quebec that society suffers from an unsustainable fixation with money. “Money isn’t what matters,” he trumpeted to spellbound students. Many would wonder at his fee for $30,000 that was paid prior to engagement—saving the world is expensive.

During global warming apex, Suzuki aimed his campaign at children. “Climate change has forced Santa to pack up his sleigh and find a new home,” he told shocked and distraught children on frequent television plugs claiming to be reporting live from the North Pole, “where Santa will live?” Donations for “Santa” were directed to the David Suzuki Foundation where lots of books could be purchased. In fact, the foundation offers eight innovative ways in which donors can provide—via your will is one of them.

Canadian Alex G. Tsakumis wrote, “…It’s the kind of pathetic rubbish that could only come from David Suzuki, a fruit fly biologist by trade, and the reigning doctor of hypocrisy. Like Gore, he has turned the study of climate into a political tool to enrich himself and his foundation. Even his CBC shows, The Nature of Things, were often full of erroneous information.”

Anyway, brace yourselves for yet another round of climate terrorism and skepticism as two mortal enemies do battle. One for control and spending money, the other for truth and saving money.

Are we being fooled?


Bertel Torsten in Canberra

ABBOTT-GESTURES-HYPNOTICALLYWHEN Christine Milne of the Greens supports Abbott's Environment Minister, Greg Hunt; when Hunt is already fighting with Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, suspicion gathers around the head of the new Prime Minister. It's looking increasingly likely that he will get rid of the Carbon Tax and replace it with Son of Carbon Tax, and the man to do it is Greg Hunt.

Hunt has called for water studies (called the "water trigger") on 47 large coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining projects before federal approvals are granted. Seems reasonable on the face of it. But Macfarlane just the day before said he (Macfarlane) was intervening in NSW to fast track CSG projects claiming that it had a gas crisis. Racketty times in Cabinet ahead!

It gets worse. The much-maligned Labor looked at four CSG projects – Hunt is looking at twelve times that number.

And, Labor only did it to shut up Tony Windsor of creepy memory. Labor dragged their feet even though they knew it would not please their partners in crime, the Greens.

Hunt is not only outdoing Labor he is proud about it. He tells the world about it. He boasts about it. He puffs out his chest and denounces Labor for not administering the law.

"THEY stalled them all and simply refused to make decisions – it was a symbol of a dying government."
It's not enough that the ratbag Greens drool over Hunt's action; one of their fronts, the Lock the Gate Alliance – the Anti-coal seam gas organization – praised him for it.

That's not all the Greens are behind him on.

Christine Milne gave nearly the same speech on the purely political "Report" of the corrupt IPCC. Possibly Bob Brown wrote the speeches for each.

HUNT endorsed the IPCC report and was interviewed by Elizabeth Jackson.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you and does your government accept this scientific assessment?

GREG HUNT: Yes we do.

That is plain enough. A straight answer to a straight question. He accepts the IPCC assessment that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of the world's problems. Furthermore, he binds all his colleagues and the PM to the same opinion. Encouraged by this, Jackson went on to look for specifics of what he is going to do about Global Warming. Little did she know, or anyone know, that he is not in the business of straight answers any more.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Do you accept that Australia will experience more fire weather, extreme rainfall, an increase in intensity of cyclones, and sea levels that could rise by up to a metre by the end of the century?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack Well, there are a range of scenarios in the report, and the broad range shows that temperatures are likely to change over the coming century from between 0.9 to 5.4 degrees. Now that depends on the extent to which the world reduces emissions, but that's the range set out. Quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So how concerned are you about Australia's coastal communities?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack. Look, I think this is an important report. Quack-quack it reaffirms the domestic work of our own agencies and indeed our own agencies were well represented in the drafting of the report.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: But Minister, are our coastal communities in danger?

GREG HUNT: Quack-quack, quack, quack-quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: OK, so what will you do to protect coastal communities? There are a lot of people who are saying that we need to rethink planning – do you agree with that?

GREG HUNT: Ribbet, Ribbet, Ribbet. Quack. Quack.

Undaunted, she asks a third time.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Practically, what will you and your Government do to protect coastal communities.

GREG HUNT: Four lines of quacks… and reduce emissions… quack-quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: (With rising tones and a hopeless wail) But you haven't said how you'll manage it.

GREG HUNT: RibbetRibbetRibbet…

She changes tack in despair.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Minister, do you agree that both Sydney and Brisbane airports are at risk long term?

GREG HUNT: Three paragraphs of quacking.

And Jackson gives up, having done her best, and trots off for a Valium sandwich and a bottle of meth. 

So what does one make of Greg "Duckspeak" Hunt? All hat and no cattle? Got his own agenda?
He apparently pursues the very thing that got Gillard and Rudd landing on their faces. Then does a Campesi around every question about specifics afterwards.

So, did Abbott pull a fast one? Pretend to conservatives that he was going to bury global warming but follow an even worse course than Labor did?

Hunt has promised to subsidise 100,000 solar panels as well. Or is it all show?

The question is: will Tony Abbott bury global warming and Greg Hunt with it, or are we being fooled?

David Suzuki drives me crazy

DAVID Suzuki’s appearance on the ABC flagship program Q&A spelled the death of any credibility left in the fag end of the climate alarm movement.

The affable climate alarmist is described by his acolytes in the Australian media as “iconic scientist and thinker”. He is really the Canadian Tim Flannery, with an expertise in insects rather than mammals.

At 77, Suzuki describes himself modestly as an “elder”. But his performance indicates he only has mastered the age bit of the equation, more than the wisdom.

Read more: Via Miranda Devine

Green Religious Principles


Jim McCrudden resurects the spectre of Bob Brown who is thought to be visiting his "fellow eartheans" from his intergalactic perch somewhere in outer reaches of the universe. GC.Ed.@L.

Professor Bron Taylor, Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Religion, himself a devoted Green, coined the idea that the Green movement is a religion. It has beliefs and practices, characterized by a basic belief that “nature is sacred, has intrinsic value, and is therefore due reverent care.”

He believes that this green religion possesses many of the characteristics of established religions, sacred texts (books like ‘Walden’), prophets (like Henry David Thoreau, Tim Flannery and Rachael Carson), rituals (like “soul surfers” meeting the ocean at dawn) and radical “eco-terrorists” (along the lines of Jihadists.)

Which explains a lot, and why evidence, or even common sense, can’t be driven into Greens’ heads with a supercharged, trillion volt,  atomic powered, diamond tipped nail gun – they are religious zealots.
Even the fact that the global warming models have more holes in them than Bonnie and Clyde does not penetrate their steel carapaces.

They have a sacred day – Earth Day – when they sit in the dark for an hour and reflect on the mystery of how climate change can cause blizzards and floods and icemelt while at the very same time it can cause bushfires and droughts and ice growth.

They have a set of beliefs known as the Green Creed, modelled after Christian Creeds.


We believe in one Planet,
Mother of us all: the Earth,
Fragile and endangered by pollution,
Both seen and unseen.
We believe in the Holy Government Agencies
the only thing standing between the Earth and oblivion,
directed by our Bishop, Gillard, to protect us.
Unquestioned and unquestionable, infallible,
Its decisions are begotten, not made.
The agencies are of one with the Father, our Government.
Through it all laws are made,
for us and for our salvation.
They hand down judgments as if from heaven:
They will never cease judging people and companies, whether living or dead,
And shall punish for insult,
And their kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Planet, the Earth, the giver of life,
which may soon be completely destroyed by man-caused global warming.
Unless saved by the IPCC and the EU.
It has spoken through the Prophet, Rachel Carson.
It acts through the Chosen Ones, Gore, Flannery, and the CSIRO.
We believe in climate change, regardless of what evidence may show.
We shamefully acknowledge that humans are the sole source of all environmental sins.
And that Earth would be better without them.
We loath and curse Carbon Dioxide and all its evils,
We hate and abominate coal and oil, and denounce mining of all kinds.
We look for redemption thorough recycling,
And for a world of Blessed Regulations,
That ensnares the unbelievers.


Jim McCrudden is a retired lawyer, an avid admirer of Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. He lives on the NSW South Coast, has a keen interest in politics and sits on local government.


Kevin Rudd Wins the Golden Fleece Award

The Carbon Sense Coalition has awarded its Inaugural Golden Fleece Award to Kevin Rudd and coal industry leaders for “flagrant fleecing of community savings" writes Viv Forbes

Its appropriate that the Golden Fleece award would recognise futile ‘research’ on Carbon Capture & Sequestration. A costly and complex process designed to capture and bury carbon dioxide gas produced by burning carbon fuels such as 'coal, oil and gas'.

It is obviously possible, in an engineering sense, to collect, separate, compress, pump and pipe gases, so new “research” is largely a waste of money. Engineers know how to do these things, and their likely costs. But only foolish green zealots would think of spending billions to bury a harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in hopes of cooling the climate some time in the century ahead.

About 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burnt in a power station. To capture, compress and bury it could take at least 30% of the electricity produced, greatly increasing the cost of the limited amount of electricity left for sale – more coal used, increased electricity costs, for ZERO measurable benefits.

We have come to expect stupidity from politicians, but coal industry leaders who agreed to waste money on this should be sued by shareholders for negligence. Maybe they were just drooling at all the extra coal they would sell in order to produce the same electricity?

Kevin Rudd wins this award for “a Flagrant Fleece of $400 million taken from tax payers to fund the fatuous Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.” There is little to show for the millions already spent except a lot of receipts for high class salaries, consultants, travel, entertainment and “operational expenses”.

Pumping gases underground is sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to drive oil recovery from declining oil fields.

Normally, however, CCS will just produce more expensive electricity.

This result is not needed as politicians have already invented dozens of ways of doing just that.

More, as well as:

  • The Warming of the last Century is too Small to Notice
  • Clean Coal by Wire
  • The New Cold War
  • The Great Barrier Reef
  • A revival of the Medieval Practice of Book Burning
  • The Beginning of the End

Read the full report: [PDF, 133 KB]

This article was reposted via Viv Forbes who writes from the Carbon Sense Coalition which can be reached at

Another tilt at the climate windmill

This time the warmists are again 'certain'! It must be true because this new and startling data has been leaked from an IPCC report that has been "peer-reviewed" by experts. Whose experts, is the question.

GC. Ed.

EVIDENCE for climate change has grown stronger and it is now ''virtually certain'' that human greenhouse gas emissions trap energy that warms the planet, according to a leaked draft of the next major Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Prepared on behalf of the United Nations every five or six years to summarise climate change research, the panel report draws on hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.

Read more:

Reported in The American Thinker: The Inter Academy Council (IAC) found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).  Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18).  In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

Return of the Climate Sceptics

The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their ecotard critics.

Reality vs alarm


…it appears that the IPCC projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

Yep, CAGW is nothing but a Greens invented scam.



Follow Andy on twitter