December 5, 2009


This Is Unbelievable If It was Not True


Censorship Is Not Science.


Here's a video that will concisely point out Who's Who in Climate Gate; Who's Who and What They Did to cover their tracks. A nice soundtrack, too.



Professor Phil Jones Exposed

Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, has announced that he is stepping down from his post as Director of the CRU until an independent investigation and revue is complete. The revue comes as a result of the allegations following the publications of emails and software data taken from the CRU by persons known on the Web as only “hadley hack” last month.

Professor Jones says he will be stepping aside during the investigation and cooperating fully with the investigators. Vice-Chancellor Edward Acton will also be stepping aside during the investigation. Professor Peter Liss, so far not named in any of the implicating emails, will be taking over the role of Director.

Of course, the global warming alarmists are up in arms about the “stolen data” and the “bad timing” and making all kinds of conspiranoid claims about who the hadley hack was, what was released, and why. This further relegates them, in my mind, into the realm of the delusional religionist and shows them to be logically brain dead.

“It has created confusion,” said Nicholas Stern, a leading Gorebot economist (meaning climate change cashier), “and confusion never helps scientific discussions.” Apparently Mr. Stern didn’t finish the fifth grade, or otherwise he would have learned that science is all about debate, confusion over the theory, and general bickering about who is right about what. That’s what the scientific vetting process is, at its core. Using the Scientific Method, a research scientist extracts data in as controlled and careful a way as possible. Then he presents it to his peers, who endlessly nit-pick and bicker over it.

Once again, of course, Stern turned to the old “consensus makes correctness” attitude, saying, “The degree of skepticism among real scientists is very small.” There wasn’t much skepticism over the earth being flat, over Newton’s Law, or any of the others that maverick skeptics challenged and proved wrong either. Thank God for skeptics like Galileo, Einstein, and many others!

He then repeats the mantra about Five Degrees and how we’re all going to cook when global temperatures rise that much by century’s end. This totally discounts, of course, the Medieval Warming Period wherein the temperature was a full six degrees higher and Vikings made settlements in then-recently-thawed Greenland and agricultural production reached its highest levels up to that point in human history.

Oh, and the seas weren’t flooding New York or Miami either.

What Stern is really upset about is that their “strategy” won’t be going through at Copenhagen to create a new world market, enforced by governments, in carbon trading. Trading by which Stern, Gore, and all their buddies would profit immensely, being the forces who control the current carbon trading markets in the West.

In other words, if people don’t keep believing in global warming, then poor sobs like Stern might lose their billions in future income potentials. Boo hoo.

Read the AP’s lopsided reporting at this link.

Meanwhile, tomorrow we’ll get back to the business of real environmental issues and problems. You know, the ones that the global warming alarmists gloss over in their continual push for global taxation so they can keep riding the gravy train.




Professor Bob Carter ( Bob's a Member of the Australian Environmental Foundation ) He uses the Scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examines the hypothesis and it fails the test........... Video Explains clearly & concisely.


John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel will be joining 30,000 scientists to sue Al Gore to debunk global warming fraud. He said global warming supporters are not open to scientific, objective discussion but have been silencing their oposition to cover their faulty science. Coleman hopes that the lawsuit will bring the truth of the matter to the public eye and force media and government outlets to give a more balanced report on the claims.


This above video gives background about the 70s ice age scare with an update about some of the principal figures involved. Newsweek, April 28, 1975


For Those Who Enjoy A Little Humour



NOW, let's get this straight. Much of the media in the past week has been lambasting Tony Abbott for being a conservative, yet the new Liberal leader is open to a discussion on nuclear energy for Australia.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who is ostensibly on the progressive side of politics, has ruled out such a discussion.

Abbott is a “humans-are-causing-climate-change” agnostic/sceptic, but one with a professed open mind on the subject.

We know where Rudd stands - he believes urgent action is needed lest Bendigo and Charleville become the new seaside places to build that weekender. Yet there is a considerable body of scientific opinion on the side of the argument that nuclear offers a way to provide large quantities of electricity with comparably low carbon emissions.

So a conservative wants to hold a conversation about how nuclear could help reduce emissions, but the left does not.

As someone once famously said: please explain.

But here is the delicious irony: the talk fest now under way in Copenhagen is expected to provide a major boost to the global move towards nuclear generated power, according to the latest energy report out of Brussels from BNP Paribas Fortis Bank. “The much delayed renaissance in the US nuclear power industry will be guaranteed by the Copenhagen accord,” the report adds. The bank is expecting US Energy Secretary Steven Chu to provide government funding for up to another 10 power plants. (Are you with us so far, Kevin?)

The bank is, as a result of the upsurge in nuclear plant building programs, expecting uranium spot prices to hit $US95/lb next year, almost double their present levels (the price dropped by US50c to $US45/lb last week). The forecast is still a long way from the $US140/lb peak in 2007 but get this - the bank says the looming uranium shortage will mean that figure will be reached again “before too long”.

Just in the past week we have seen Armenia announce a new 1000 megawatt nuclear plant, the South African power utility say the only way it can reach its emission reduction target by 2020 is if the country has a nuclear plant operating, India has announced four new 700MW plants and Mississippi regulators have approved expanding the generation capacity of the Grand Gulf nuclear power station in that state.

So, while sobbing uncontrollably about your recently acquired gold stocks which are now looking a little limp or cursing yourself for not getting in on the ground floor for potash and phosphate, this might be the time to start paying attention to what the uranium plays are up to.

In the past 24 hours, for example, we’ve seen a number of announcements.

WildHorse Energy has begun drilling at its 72sq km Mecsek Hills uranium project in Hungary, Extract Resources announced some exciting assays from its Rossing South project in Namibia including 28m at 0.45 per cent U3O8, Aura Energy has committed $1.6 million to define a uranium resource at its Storsjon project in Sweden, and Impact Minerals has started the first drill program at its Botswana uranium project.

This is no time for nodding off when someone mentions uranium.

Indeed Interesting Times Lay Ahead For The Uranium Bulls