We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

NASA discovers: Greenland WAS Green 3 million years ago

About 3 million years ago, Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra. 
Most people who have studied Climate Matters would be aware of  GUS -Gården Under Sandet (See Alarming News for the Alarmists) GUS proved that the Medieval Warm Period existed and hence the naming of the island "Greenland" by Eric the Red.

Now however a team of university scientists and a NASA colleague were greatly surprised to discover an ancient tundra landscape preserved under the Greenland Ice Sheet, below two miles of ice. The team reported their discovery on April 17 in the journal Science.

Just think! Greenland was really Green 3 million years ago.
The discovery indicates that even during the warmest periods since the ice sheet formed, the center of Greenland remained stable. This allowed a tundra landscape to be locked away, unmodified, under ice through millions of years of global warming and cooling. 
“The traditional knowledge about glaciers is that they are very powerful agents of erosion and can effectively strip a landscape clean. Instead, we demonstrate that the Greenland Ice Sheet is not acting as an agent of erosion; in fact, at it’s center, it has performed incredibly little erosion since its inception almost three million years ago,” said co-author Lee Corbett, a graduate student at the University of Vermont. (source)
The paper, published in Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1249047  Paul R. Bierman et al

Preservation of a Preglacial Landscape Under the Center of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Continental ice sheets typically sculpt landscapes via erosion; under certain conditions, ancient landscapes can be preserved beneath ice and can survive extensive and repeated glaciation. We used concentrations of atmospherically produced cosmogenic beryllium-10, carbon, and nitrogen to show that ancient soil has been preserved in basal ice for millions of years at the center of the ice sheet at Summit, Greenland. This finding suggests ice sheet stability through the Pleistocene (i.e., the past 2.7 million years). The preservation of this soil implies that the ice has been non-erosive and frozen to the bed for much of that time, that there was no substantial exposure of central Greenland once the ice sheet became fully established, and that preglacial landscapes can remain preserved for long periods under continental ice sheets.

The findings show that the soil had been stable and exposed at the surface for somewhere between 200,000 and 1 million years before being covered by ice. To help interpret them, the scientists also measured nitrogen and carbon that could have been left by plant material in the core sample. 
“The fact that measurable amounts of organic material were found in the silty ice indicates that soil must have been present under the ice,” said co-author Dr Andrea Lini from the University of Vermont. 
Greenland really was green! However, it was millions of years ago. Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth,” Dr Rood said. (bold added - Source)

Monday, April 21, 2014

Arctic Temperatures highest on 44,000 years...er make that 5,000 years...er..or Spruce made a Goose!

Headline of an article written for Yahoo News by Douglas Main:

Arctic Temperatures Highest in at Least 44,000 Years

Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting, but how does it compare to the past, and how serious is it? 
New research shows that average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic over the last century are the highest in the last 44,000 years, and perhaps the highest in 120,000 years. (Unprecedented recent warmth in Arctic Canada)
"The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is," Gifford Miller, a researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in a joint statement from the school and the publisher of the journal Geophysical Researcher Letters, in which the study by Miller and his colleagues was published online this week. "This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Part of the abstract says: (link)
Reconstructed changes in snowline elevation suggest that summers cooled ~2.7°C over the past 5000 years,
Courtesy of Dr Tim Ball (link) (written in March 2012 before the above story)

Sensationalist And Distorted Climate Stories Increase As Climate Science Failures Exposed 
However, if you are unconvinced by the ice core data, it is supported by physical evidence. Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto) identified and photographed a picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra some 100km north of the current treeline (Figure 2). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP). It was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future.
Tim says, of the above photo, 
(It) is a photo of a White Spruce radiocarbon dated at 5000 years old located 100 km north of the current tree line. Temperatures had to be 2-3°C warmer than at present for this to happen. 
Warmer 5,000 years ago? So much for Miller et al's "peer-reviewed"unprecedented warmth.

Dr Judith Curry on her blog Climate etc. also wrote:
Miller et al. assume that the Baffin Island melting is attributable to AGW.  Maybe it is.  In the Chasing Ice post, I noted that the peak glacier discharge from West Greenland occurred in the 1930′s. The Ellesmere ice shelves also saw a melt back earlier in the 20th century circa the 1930′s.  The Miller et al. paper does not remark on any evidence of warming in the 1930′s, or the LIA or MWP for that matter, but note only a cooling over the past 5000 years, with marked warming in the past 100 years.  The reasoning behind the Miller et al. conclusions is rather complex, with a number of assumptions, I’m not sure what to make of their arguments. 
In any event, how representative of the Arctic is their findings from Baffin Island?  Well, it doesn’t even seem to be too representative even of Ellesmere Island and West Greenland.
After discussion of a somewhat conflicting(peer-reviewed) paper by Opel et al, Dr Curry concludes:
The natural internal variability in the Arctic seems to be an exceedingly complex dance between atmospheric circulations, sea ice, ocean circulations and ice sheet dynamics, on a range of timescales.  We have some hints about how all this interacts, but much is unknown.  In light of this, simplistic inferences about global warming in the Arctic seem unjustified. 

Alarmists Amazing Arfulness

As the falsification of the Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming (CAGW) hoax become more and more evident, the Global Warming Nazis become shriller and shriller with their artful alarmism.

The Collins English Dictionary defines statesman (ˈsteɪtsmən) as a political leader whose wisdom, integrity, etc, win great respect. Curiously the publication StatesmanJournal.com, with the publication of a letter below accompanied by a John Cole cartoon shows no wisdom, no integrity etc and certainly didn't win this blogs respect with the falsities contained in the letter and cartoon.

I’m frustrated by the media’s misrepresentation of climate change.
Ask the people in New Jersey and Louisiana who witnessed Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina firsthand. Ask the people in the town of Newtok, Alaska, why they’re moving their whole town away from the coast. Ask the people near Austin, Texas, about their wildfires.
I defend others’ opinions to deny climate change, as well as to imply that we who do believe in climate change are wrong. However, in the interest of honest, open dialogue, criticizing us without offering/promoting/supporting/comparing your and our beliefs with clarifying evidence seems fruitless.
Did you know that a bigger threat than carbon dioxide is the methane that will be released from a warming ocean?
Earth Day is around the corner. We have as much right to use petitions to garner attention to our concerns as others do with their opinions. Remember, the consequences of doing nothing if we’re correct are far greater than if you are correct.
Roberta Cade

Well, Roberta, I also am frustrated by the media's misrepresentation of climate change. I am also appalled by your misrepresentations of climate change.

You use natural disasters as "evidence" that climate change is catastrophic. Most scientists, including the IPCC,  agreed that natural disasters are NOT caused by climate change.

You say: "I defend others’ opinions to deny climate change.." but Roberta, we don't deny climate change, we KNOW that climate has changed since time began. We also know that the late twentieth century warming  has stopped and that there has been no global warming this century.

You say: "criticizing us without offering/promoting/supporting/comparing your and our beliefs" .....
Roberta, you must have had your eyes and ears closed and are not interested in learning the truth. The NIPCC report: Climate Change Reconsidered II (pdf) offers more science than the IPCC's AR5 and has references to peer-reviewed papers. Unlike the IPCC's AR5, the CCR-II has no papers from advocacy groups.

Moving on to John Cole's cheating cartoon. He tries to depict a weight of "evidence" against one man with snow on his roof.

Even Mr Cole must KNOW that this is wrong! ONE ROOF - John? Make that most of the Northern Hemisphere, make it the Middle East....etc. See these news reports. But there are the thousands of scientist who signed the petition project, there are thousands of papers that opposed the falsified global warming hoax (see also), there are the NIPCC's CCR-II reports.

Mr Cole, your cartoon was unbalanced.

His LH side should be joined by more truth:

Response Letter by Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks:


Patrick Tobin is correct below that you need not be a scientist to "smell a rat." In fact, non-scientists are probably better at spotting the disingenuous, because we scientists traditionally trust the work of other scientists.

But that is changing as we discover that our fellow scientists are subject to conflicts of interest problems as much as the average person. We have observed far too many instances where scientists are perfectly willing to go along with the prevailing paradigm, just because that's where the money is.

As to "the evidence," both you and the accompanying cartoon are FAR WRONG. This is where it helps to be a scientist. I'm an astrophysicist with a background very similar to the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen.

While there is a vast collection of circumstantial evidence purporting to link man's burning of fossil fuels to a catastrophic warming of the earth's climate, it is all best characterized as nonsense. You should be able to understand that hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina were not unusual events as hurricanes go. We know of many, many such storms in the past that caused vast destruction. They have actually been less prevalent in recent decades than in prior ones.

As to "clarifying evidence," we have done so for the US Supreme Court in this amicus available here:

We show that the government's case against carbon dioxide is easily found to be fatally flawed, by refuting the EPA's "Three Lines of Evidence." There has been no "unusual warming" since 1950. The EPA does not understand the physical basis of the slight warming that has occurred (mostly north of 20 N), because the 'Hot Spot' necessary in the tropical mid-troposphere is completely missing. And the climate models that are supposed to be sooo good have been unable to explain the lack of net warming since 1998 and are erroneous by a factor of as much as 3.5 in the temperature trend.

We do as all scientists are supposed to do. We check theories against the most robust data we have, in this case high quality satellite measurements (available since 1979) and radiosonde measurements in the tropics.

Lastly, you assert that we should go along with clearly falsified science, because you believe that the consequences are far greater if we continue to insist that science be objective.

The real consequences that you should consider are those that result from blindly following false science that is really just politics and religion.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Dueling climate reports – this one is worth sharing on your own blog

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

Increased CO2 Greening the Planet
NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at http://www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Carbon Dioxide Scam.

                       The Carbon Dioxide Scam.

by Terence Cardwell

No doubt after the recent cyclone Ita the alarmists will be coming out of the woodwork crying out that the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end. Along with the IPCC’s latest report, which had nothing new to report only to repeat the 1990s catch cries of rising temperature, rising seas, no rain, droughts, increased cyclones, people starving because they cannot grow food, melting Himalayan mountains, shrinking Arctic and Antarctic polar caps, dying polar bears, dying barrier reef, dying forests in Brazil and Indonesia, new records set hot, cold etc. etc.

They pump it out like an endless conveyor. But then again, why not?

This was all started by some clever people in the United Nations who worked out how to extract large amounts of money from governments all over the world. Prior to this the United Nations had a great deal of trouble keeping its head above water and continually chasing countries to pay their obligations of money to the United Nations.

But since they ran this, the world’s biggest scam, they are literally rolling in money. Billions of dollars given by gullible and naïve governments, including Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd who handed over 57 billion of dollars of your money. Yet no one did anything about it.

No wonder they can afford all those websites pushing global warming/ come climate change.

Also the Climate change commission which was sacked, and then came back as a self- appointed not for profit (what a con) Climate Council led by the king of con men Tim Flannery. Another out of  the box, the Climate Authority. All pushing the scam and lies.

Tim Flannery for example has made many dire (the sky is falling) predictions but NOT one of them ever eventuated. He was the man than caused four states to spend over six billion dollars on useless desalination plants that have never been required and cost a million dollars a year each to maintain.

One wonders exactly what did they and their labor government cohorts get out of it. You can be sure it wasn’t just ’retirement’ which they probably welcomed with open arms so that they could enjoy the fruits of their labours.

The IPCC went on again about rising seas, like they did in 1993 and the seas have not risen 40mm and nor will they. They said the global temperature will rise sharply, again just like they said in 1993. In fact it has drifted down fractionally over the past eighteen years.

They repeat that we must change to ‘clean’ energy just like they did in 1990. The result since then - an absolute catastrophic waste of billions of dollars spent on solar and wind energy that was an immense failure plus losses of billions of dollars given to the U.N.

The other experiments with roof insulation, hot rocks programme, clean coal power stations, Wind generators, solar farms and pumping CO2 underground, the Carbon tax and tax credits have all ended up as total disasters or complete failures. To the cost of more billions of dollars.

More money than our entire inherited deficit was spent on these, and tens of billions of dollars given to the United Nations. Your money!!!

Now they are buying carbon credits, so we can run our industries, from places like Nigeria who couldn’t give a damn what we do. But they are overjoyed at taking our money.

So what is the end result of all this?

Well we know it was supposed to reduce the manmade CO2 and thus prevent Global Warming and save the planet. Ooops I forgot that word didn’t work so now it is manmade climate change.

As if we don’t have a change in climate every day.

So what was the result of all these scams and billions of dollars after some 35 years. ZERO. Nothing. The carbon dioxide content has risen fractional and the world’s average temperature has gone down slightly.

Every one of the alarmists predictions were miserable failures and never occurred. The forests did not die, although they are being decimated by logging and palm oil plantations. But the alarmists and Greenies never did a thing about that.

The polar caps are the largest they have been for years; they also decrease in summer with the melting of the sea ice which the alarmists try to use as a proof of warming. The barrier reef is in excellent condition overall but the greenies keep trying.

Cyclones and storms we have had forever and in spite of what the alarmists say they are actually less than the beginning of this century. If you doubt it have a look at the Internet graphs.

The list goes on but at the end of it all this false hypothesis depends on one thing only. All the above and other theories are caused by manmade (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide.

The whole hypothesis is like a inverted triangle where all these predictions are based on one thing -------man made carbon dioxide.

So if we prove that the hypothesis that manmade carbon dioxide is causing climate change is a lie and a scam then the rest of the statements become null and void.

No one questions that we have climate change—every day. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. Other times it can be terrifying with even new records set. But the clear and obvious factors will become apparent that we do not affect the weather with ‘Manmade’ carbon Dioxide and we can do nothing to control the weather.

Keeping in mind that pollution of any form is obviously objectionable but carbon dioxide is not pollution and is an essential part of everyday life. Although the alarmists take pleasure in saying it is- another weak deception.

According to the alarmists own figures the total carbon dioxide in the air was 360 parts per million and they say it has risen to 390 parts per million in 50 to 100 years.

What they don’t say is that the past record for atmospheric carbon dioxide is that it has continually been rising and falling over the past thousands of years. At times it has been five times greater than it is now with no detrimental effect whatsoever.

Let’s put this atmospheric carbon dioxide into perspective. We will be generous and call it 400 parts per million for simplicity.

Fill a 12 litre bucket with water and add a teaspoon full of water to that bucket. That is how much total carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere---one teaspoon full.

But wait according to the alarmists that is not causing global warming –ooops –climate change.

No- it is only the carbon dioxide that is emitted by man that is causing climate change.—We have yet to find out the difference!!!!- must be the way we breath.

So how much is this manmade carbon dioxide- must be a lot.

Again using their figures, the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase from 360p.p.m to 390 p.p.m. we’ll round it off to 400 p.p.m. again for simplicity.

So the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 40 p.p.m in 50 years or (point) 0.8 p.p.m. increase per year, again for simplicity we’ll bump it up to 1 p.p.m. per year.

Now that equates to CO2 world emissions  per year -one teaspoonful per 4800 litres of water.

This includes ALL carbon dioxide emitted , including trees, plants, volcanoes, oceans, animals, wells, manmade and another one they came up with recently- CO2 from melting ice that had gas bubbles in it.

 But according to the alarmists only the manmade part of all that is causing climate change. So what percentage of total CO2 emissions is manmade CO2.?

Again by the alarmists figures manmade CO2 is 4% of all emissions so now our teaspoon of water becomes one teaspoon per 120,000 litres of water. per year.
That is the total worldwide manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere.

So how much of this does Australia emit-----1.5% of total world emissions.
So our final teaspoon becomes—one teaspoon per 900,000 litres of water from Australia.

Carbon dioxide is also being absorbed by trees and plants that then emit oxygen. We breathe it in at 400 p.p.m. and breath it out at 1000 p.p.m. Carbon dioxide is used in drinks, manufacturing, fire extinguishers, etc .and is a totally harmless. It is inert gas that has no more heat reflective or transference characteristics than many other gases.

If you still believe that alarmists are right go back and do the figures again. They speak for themselves.

Terence Cardwell

Adam Bandt: More Bastardry.

by Anthony Cox

I met a fool in the forest, a motley fool!
The AG, George Brandis is going to either repeal or amend Section 18C of the RDA, the section which got Bolt and which is used by Islamists to stop legitimate criticism of the evils of Islam.

Naturally the Greens, the party of censorship and working against the best interests of Australia, has objected to Brandis’ proposed change. Adam Bandt, previously a multiple member of the Bastards Club, has come out claiming that sceptics having a right of speech is feudal.

Apparently Abbot’s restoration of the Royal Honours system means giving everyone the right to have their viewpoint is part of the feudal system. What can you say to that except to quote from Shakespeare:
I met a fool i’ the forest, A motley fool.
Bandt is a motley fool, brimming with puffery and vinegary vapours, and if he and his fellow fools had their way we would all be living in the dark in the forest. Bandt says: 
I mean, if someone said 'two plus two equals five', would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said 'two plus two equals four'?
Bandt means to say that the sceptics cannot add up and says the science of AGW:
has been through one of the most rigorous peer-reviewed processes it can go through.
The science community is now essentially speaking with one voice.
This is a lie, a complete misrepresentation.

The idea of a consensus found its peer reviewed form in Cook’s egregious paper. This paper has been ridiculed throughout the blog community. That it was published is both an indictment of the peer review process and the calibre of those who support AGW. I replied to it here. Mr Cook turned up to debate and I replied to him:
In your paper you define the consensus position as being: "That humans are causing global warming." That consensus position is defined in your categories by category 1 of Table 2 which I have already quoted. The rest of your categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW. However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate you selected you discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for YOUR definition of the consensus that: "Humans are causing global warming." That’s 1% not 97%.
That’s 1% not 97%! Mr Cook did not reply further. So when Bandt says AGW science speaks with one voice we can say a couple of things. Firstly that voice doesn’t know what it is talking about. It cannot claim a consensus because it cannot do its sums right. And when Bandt talks about two and two equals five he is talking about AGW not the sceptics.

Secondly, the consensus is in fact with the sceptics with thousands of papers against AGW science and thousands of scientists and meteorologists with no vested interest, financial or ideological, in promoting the lie of AGW, being sceptical of AGW.

Thirdly AGW science actively seeks to censor, just as Bandt does, any opposing view. Bandt is not the only censorious bastard in the ranks of the AGW believers. People like Hamilton, Manne, Suzuki, Gore, and the ABC have all advocated suppression of and censorship of sceptics. People like Lewandowsky say sceptics have mental abnormalities. Or at least he tried to say that until his paper failed even the helpful peer review that alarmist papers receive. This failed paper still receives published status at Lewandowsky’s former university which tells you all you need to know about the Tertiary sectors commitment to alarmism.

The simple fact is if AGW was reputable, legitimate, evidenced science it wouldn’t need the bully boy tactics that bastards like Bandt employ. But because AGW is a failed theory it has to resort to these tactics which belong in Communism and other tyrannical societies. Of course the political party which Bandt belongs to has communists amongst its members so his despicable comments are consistent with that ‘pedigree’.

Let us hope Brandis keeps his nerve and resists the pressure from Bandt and other bastards of the left who do not have the best interests of this nation at heart.