Ziggy Zapata Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - www.ziggy.com.au - to open the entire Ziggy Zapata website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


In recent years up to around 1998, the planet Earth had a slight increase in overall temperature, quite a normal occurrence in historical terms. This has spawned a myriad of doomsayers, from former US Vice-President Al Gore to scads of scientists who have jumped onto the climate change bandwagon for whatever reasons they have found to justify their stance. Of course they are trying to make the case that humans are somehow responsible for this global warming and the catastrophic results that will ensue from it. However, in actual fact in 2007-2008, the earth has actually slightly cooled.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations international body that assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Its reports have been the entire basis on which various emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes have been imposed to allegedly stop the planet from heating up.

In recent times, IPCC reports on global warming have been exposed as being falsified and in fact hard data has shown that the planet has actually slightly cooled in the past 20 years, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. So the "Global Warming" term was abandoned in favour of "Climate Change", allowing the IPCC to hedge its bets as to which way global temperatures were going to move.

The carbon tax imposed by the former Gillard Labor government was based on the IPCC data that is so flaky, however many people have wondered about the real reason that this tax was imposed, even though it exposed Gillard as a monumental liar. Well, the truth about the so-called global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide increase and all the rest of the IPCC data has been exposed as a gigantic scam by none other than a top IPCC official who is right on the inside of this organisation.


At the time when hard research showed that the planet had started to cool, the IPCC stated in its 2003 report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Right there in that statement is the admission that the IPCC and anybody else is incapable of predicting long-term climate states. Therefore all the computer modelling in the world cannot be used to categorically state that there will be a global temperature increase of 1ºC to 2ºC or that carbon dioxide levels will increase because of human activity.

In fact, carbon dioxide levels have not risen to any great extent in the past century and they are historically low. At periods in the past, carbon dioxide levels were up at 1000 to 1200 parts per million and at this time, they are below 400 parts per million. Because plant life requires carbon dioxide, it means that even at around the present level, plants are not flourishing as they should and thus animal and insect life is reducing. The best thing for this planet would actually be to increase carbon dioxide levels to a marked degree, but this would not fit in with the narrative that is pushing the anthropogenic global warming and climate change scam.


In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources were to be negotiated. Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, "We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."


If anybody needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scam to redistribute wealth, the admission from one of the top IPCC people that instigated it is the absolute proof that it is a monstrous scam. Edenhofer stated, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Edenhofer also stated, "Developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes." So out of this cockamamy theory about developed nations expropriating the world's atmosphere, which has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever, Edenhofer proposed that those nations be robbed by a stupid climate change scam that has no basis in fact either. And those so-called victim nations - they are not victims of anything, but Edenhofer and his quasi-communist gang at the IPCC want to rob nations purely on the basis that they have been successful and advanced.

Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." As such, Edenhofer is a huge player in advancing this theory, but he has now made it quite clear that this is actually an international socialistic economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth. As Australia's carbon tax was based on this amazing con-job, it therefore had absolutely no grounds to be imposed.


The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But that is not true. Another United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference in Brussels in October 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty that environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference in December 2015, she added, "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

This is insanity on a global scale, allowing the UN to manipulate the planet for the redistribution of wealth by using this bogus climate change scam to destroy capitalism, the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked. The evidence is prima facie. From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming "the economic development model" because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," noted Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left. But her admission merely adds to the confession of Ottmar Edenhofer that the UN is using the climate change scam to bring the modern world to its knees in some sort of ideological mania.


In 2013 in the USA, according to reports, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan were 740mm below their average measurements taken since 1918. Scientists warned communities that they could only expect more tragedy with the Great Lakes. With a lack of rain from human-caused climate change, they told everyone to expect levels to continue to drop. In an April 2013 report from the International Joint Commission, a group with members from the United States and Canada that advises on water resources, said that their five-year study concluded that water levels in the lakes were likely to drop even farther, in part because of the lack of precipitation in recent years brought on by human-caused climate change.

Yet after this warning that the Great Lakes were in serious trouble and to expect lower water levels, they encountered quite a surprise. The Great Lakes water levels were rising and drastically so. This development startled scientists and thrilled just about everybody with a stake in the waterfront, including owners of beach houses, retailers in tourist areas and dockmasters who run marinas on the lake shore. In 2014, Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior were at least 305mm higher than they were a year before and were expected to rise 76mm more over just one month. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie were 25mm higher in 2014 than in 2013.

Scientists partially attribute the rise in water levels to the frigid winters and abundance of rain in the US Midwest, but climate change researchers failed to predict the dramatic reversal of trends. One politician wanting to emphasise his knowledge of climate said, "Climate change is real, it's happening today, the potential economic impact of climate change particularly on water levels is significant." His statement just showed that he had no idea about climate change if he claimed that humans were causing it. Yes, climate change is real. It changes from day to day, from year to year and century to century, but that does not mean that puny mankind can affect it globally.

Then there are the winters. One of the coldest winters on record covered most of the Great Lakes with ice in the 12 months to July 2014, including an entirely iced-over Lake Superior. That year was the longest that ice has been seen on Lake Superior in 40 years of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records.

The Great Lakes hit the second-highest ice coverage on record on 06 March 2014, with 92% of the five lakes covered in ice. Temperatures in the Great Lakes region averaged 4ºC below normal from January to April 2014. More than a third of the Great Lakes remained covered in ice by mid-April and that caused problems for shipping. The Coast Guard was out on the lakes breaking up ice from early December 2013.

Other Information tells the story. In 1911 Niagara Falls froze, but in 2014 it froze over twice. Four of the five top snowiest winters in the USA occurred since 2008. Europe suffered the same temperature falls. In February 2012, temperatures in Germany, plummeted to -19.6C. During the same month temperatures in Russia plunged to -28.5C, while temperatures in Beijing, China dropped to -7.8 C. This deep chill was not just a one-off. Similar episodes were recorded across Eurasia in January 2010, December 2009, January 2008 and January 2006.

German meteorologist Dominik Jung was correct when he observed, "Climate experts forecasts change as fast as the weather." The truth is that the Earth’s average temperature has not risen in almost 18 years to 2014. In fact the climate takes care of itself by averaging all this out. The evidence against man-caused global warming keeps piling up and as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "A lie can travel the world before the truth can get its pants on." And the mantra about humans causing global climate change is a lie.


In February 2014, British scientists found that carbon dioxide stored in an isolated reservoir deep in the Southern Ocean re-connected with the atmosphere, driving a rise in atmospheric CO2 and an increase in global temperatures. An international team, including Yale paleoclimatologist Michael Henehan, studied the shells of ancient marine organisms that lived in surface waters of the southern Atlantic and eastern equatorial Pacific oceans thousands of years ago. The researchers determined that high concentrations of dissolved CO2 in those waters coincided with rises in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures at the end of the last ice age.

This proves that human-caused climate change is utter nonsense. The oceans store and release CO2 in cycles and this is what causes global warming and cooling. In fact it has been proven that the Earth goes through these cycles approximately every 800 years and in the last warming cycle, frozen places like Greenland were actually sub-tropical. Science and facts don't lie. The people who lie are those who are driving the push for a global Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits, because they will make a fortune from promulgating this nonsense that humans are driving up the temperature of the planet. In fact the statistics prove that they are lying, because since around 1996, the planet has been cooling and there is no sign of global warming at all.


The most preposterous notion involving the theory of human-caused climate change is that the pathetic efforts of humans can somehow affect global climatic conditions and that reduction of human-emitted carbon dioxide will somehow reduce global warming and thus reduce the greenhouse effect.

What firstly needs to be understood is that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the sustenance of life on Earth. If there was no greenhouse effect trapping heat and keeping temperatures at the current levels, life on this planet would become untenable. The average surface temperature would be around minus four degrees. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, so if this dissipated, the surface of the planet would be as dry as Mars.

In other words, the greenhouse effect is not something bad, as many of these climate change scaremongers are trying to insinuate. It is the most important facet of life on Earth as we know it. Greenhouse gas emissions do not cause any detriment to the planet - they actually help sustain our existence.


The other preposterous notion is that human emissions can somehow influence global climate. In fact it is easy to show that one natural occurrence can make human efforts in this regard look like a drop in the ocean.

Puyohue Volcano
The Puyehue volcano in Chile erupting in June 2011

For instance, in just four days, the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland in 2010 negated every single effort by humans to control CO2 emissions for at least five years. The eruption of the Puyehue volcano in Chile in 2011 did much the same. But the killer was Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines that erupted in 1991 for more than one year and spewed out more pollutants than the whole human race managed to emit in 40 billion years of existence on the planet. And there are over 100 active volcanoes on the planet at any one time.

This is not to say that humans should just continue emitting pollutants. In fact humans should do what they can to ensure that they don't contribute to a degradation of the environment, but to claim that human emissions can compete with volcanoes, cosmic phenomena, solar activity, oceanic CO2 emissions and other natural phenomena is just ridiculous. But the most ridiculous concept is that a tax on CO2 will somehow stop those emissions.


The Galileo Foundation released this video, showing how stupid and futile the carbon tax was. When it is seen how insignificant human-emitted CO2 is in the scheme of things, one can only be angry and outraged at the incredible scam that the Gillard government perpetrated on the Australian people.

Explanation of the stupidity of the carbon tax

The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax was that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found. Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that many industrialised nations were essentially bankrupt. The creation of money without tangible assets to back it had finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and where creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt.

So as the world moved from production to consumption, the emphasis was shifting to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem.

Journalist Richard K Moore wrote a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called Prognosis 2012: Towards a New World Social Order that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions.

The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. It is the same principle that applies to governments that raise vast amounts of revenue from motoring infringements. The last thing that those governments want is for motorists to stop speeding or committing other bookable offences, because if they did, the revenue would dry up and those governments would suffer catastrophic reductions in their budgets.

So the same would happen if if polluters actually did reduce emissions. The tax rate would rise to compensate for the reduced revenue, but if polluters did manage to actually reduce their emissions to a marked degree, governments that relied on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading would collapse. So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emissions won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.


Michael O'Leary, the head of British airline Ryanair, had a far more blunt and colourful response to the proponents of an ETS or a carbon dioxide tax. He quite rightly pointed out that scientists were pushing the global warming or climate change barrow and had made dire predictions for the world for the next century, based on rather flawed and sometimes deliberately manipulated computer modelling, but were incapable of accurately predicting the weather two weeks in the future.

"It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit!"
Michael O'Leary, CEO of airline Ryanair


Around 31,000 top scientists around the world have stated unequivocally that human-caused global warming or climate change is utter nonsense. Here are a few statements from such eminent scholars.


Paleontologist Tim Flannery, another self-professed climate change expert, was being paid around $180,000 to sit on the Climate Commission by the Labor government to push its carbon tax onto Australia, however he has made so many wrong predictions over the years, that nobody could ever take him seriously. Among Flannery's litany of wrong predictions are these gems:

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water. Sydney's dam levels in 2011 were 73% full and rising.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20% decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems." In 2011, the Murray-Darling system was in flood. Brisbane's dam levels were 100% full and according to figures from Wivenhoe Dam's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106%full on the morning of 07 January 2011 to 148% on the morning of 10 January 2011, much of this excess water having to be released into the Brisbane River.

In 2007, Flannery predicted that global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. He stated, "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20% of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie took such predictions so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayer money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate". That desalination plant is now mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned - not just rains, but the worst flooding in Queensland's history - and $90 million has gone down the toilet.

In 2008, Flannery said, "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Adelaide's water storage levels in 2011 were 77% full. So far, Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages have been so far off the mark, that anybody who takes this man seriously would have to be insane. His influence on various Labor governments has resulted in the squandering of untold millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

For instance, back in 2007, Flannery warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff. This was a load of rubbish in itself, as nations such as China are purchasing more coal than ever before to burn for energy. However, Flannery suggested that Australia should switch to "green" power instead and he recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," Flannery said. "The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward." Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology and in 2009, the Rudd Labor government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. It should be known that Flannery has been a Geodynamics shareholder for many years.

This tip from Flannery turned into disaster. The technology Flannery said was "relatively straightforward" wasn't. One of Geodynamics's five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement. The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in an alleged warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further delayed, following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region.

With this abysmal track record, how on earth did Flannery land the cushy $180,000 position on the Climate Commission? There's only one explanation - that the Labor government found itself a tame scientist to push its carbon tax agenda and although Flannery was not a climate scientist by any means, many people considered him to be some sort of authority because he was a scientist of sorts - although with nothing to do with climatology.

The fact that federal and state governments, all of them Labor, actually listened to Flannery, took his advice and squandered so much taxpayer money was an indictment on their gullibility and irresponsibility. Even worse was that this insane Labor government was not only still listening to Flannery, but was paying him around $3000 per week for his baloney. But the gross waste of this money will paled into insignificance compared to the impost of the carbon tax until its repeal. Fortunately, when the Abbott Liberal government won power in 2013, they booted Flannery out on his ear.


In March 2011, climate change apologist Tim Flannery was asked that if Australians were going to be taxed for emitting carbon dioxide, surely they should at least be given an idea on how much their tax contribution will help cool the planet. He was told that if the taxes of Australians are going to be used to cool the climate, it would only be fair that Australians should know by how much. Flannery could not answer this question. He thought that a probable amount might be 0.5%, but he could not be sure.

Flannery was then asked how long would it take before this enforced carbon dioxide tax contribution would start to show signs that it is working. His answer was stunning in the extreme.

Flannery stated to journalist Andrew Bolt, "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years." But Flannery wasn't talking about the lousy 1.4% that humans in Australia allegedly emit - he was talking about ALL nations cutting ALL greenhouse gases globally. However, this was merely a guess on his part, because if the truth be known, Flannery did not have the foggiest notion of what would happen to the climate, whether humans keep emitting the same stuff or we close down everything and crawl off to live in caves and eat worms.

But having admitted this, Flannery was still acting as the federal government's climate change apologist and travelling around the nation promoting a carbon tax, knowing damn well that it would not reduce CO2 emissions and even if it did succeed, it would only reduce global greenhouse emissions by around one-millionth. It was obvious that Flannery, who was being paid a lot of money for doing this, was prepared to promote this new religion that had such a detrimental effect on the entire Australian population, knowing that it was a scam.

Flannery's admission clearly demonstrated what a gigantic scam the proposed carbon tax really was. This insane tax was not even aiming to eradicate that whole 1.4% of all Australian human-emitted greenhouse gases, but just 5% of the CO2 component, which is 3.6% of the total. But when did a tax actually stop something? Have high taxes stopped people from smoking, drinking alcohol or driving cars? Of course not - in fact, the last thing any government reaping revenue from taxes wants to see is a reduction of that revenue.


The government and proponents of this new tax relied on the ignorance of the general public as to what was really going to be taxed. The very name of this tax was completely false. It was called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because the general public associated carbon with that sooty black stuff that came out of the chimneys of factories and power stations. Nothing was further from the truth.



In May 2011, the first report by the Government's Climate Commission (CC) warned that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record. This report stated that the biological world was changing in response to a warming world. It also stated that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation were triggering the changes that are being witnessed in the global climate.

But this was just another government attempt to scam the people of Australia. The Climate Commission members were handpicked by the Gillard Labor government on the basis that they had to believe in climate change. No skeptics or completely independent scientists were permitted to be on this Commission. In other words, it was the same situation as only appointing judges that were sympathetic to the government's political line and no judge who was totally independent would be considered.

On top of that, the Climate Commission's findings were a pile of rubbish. This bunch of government-appointed stooges claimed that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the past decade being the hottest on record. They very conveniently forgot to mention all the drastic heating that the planet had undergone in the past, with temperatures far higher than anything in the present era. In fact about 800 years ago, icy Greenland was sub-tropical and the Arctic was navigable by ships. There are many more instances of severe global heating, as well as a number of ice ages.

This Climate Commission also stated that if nothing was done about alleged human-caused pollution, the planet's temperature would rise by 2º by 2050, less than 40 years away. This completely flew in the face of the statement of the head of the International Panel for Climate Change, who stated that the planet's temperature would rise by no more than ½º in a century. So who is to be believed? Actually none of them. All the predictions were based on completely flawed computer modelling, no better than a long-range weather forecast or a wild guess.

It was amazing to see the depths to which the Gillard Labor government stooped to impose a CO2 tax. This bunch of inept clowns, having already destroyed the Australian economy with a monumental series of blunders and scams, rigged a Climate Commission that could never be believed by any rational person.


In June 2011, Governor Chris Christie of the US state of New Jersey announced that New Jersey would withdraw from a 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program by the end of 2011, saying the program was ineffective at combating global warming. He stated, "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure."

“RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernible or measurable impact upon our environment,” Christie said. Critics of cap-and-trade programs said that they constituted a new form of taxation because they imposed additional costs on electric utilities that were then passed on to customers.

Governor Christie hit the nail right on the head with New Jersey's withdrawal from this scheme, simply because what he said was quite correct. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax will have no discernible or measurable impact on the environment. And no politician or scientist has yet been able to definitively show that human-caused CO2 emission caused global warming, climate change or any other problem.

Of course the big problem with any sort of tax or impost on electricity generators is that they would merely pass the additional cost onto their customers and still keep emitting the same CO2 if not more, as demand increases. This is how all businesses operate, by factoring all expenses into their products and setting prices for those products that contain the expenses. In other words, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme would not reduce pollution by one iota.


The carbon tax was ostensibly a move to reduce human-caused CO2 emissions and thus reduce so-called human-caused climate change, if at all it existed. This is what the government was saying. But what did the figures say? Very simply, the figures said that the government was completely misrepresenting this issue and every concerned person in Australia should have demanded to know the real motivation behind imposing this massive tax on everything, when it had no basis in fact.

Firstly, climate change has been occurring for millions of years without any human intervention or effect. This planet has been much hotter at many times in its history than now. Back in 1200AD, Greenland was sub-tropical, hence the name, but there were no massive industries that spewed out CO2. So it is a fact that climate does change, regardless of any human activity, because humans cannot even remotely come close to affecting this planet’s climate, when compared to natural phenomena.

This is why nobody has heard much about "Global Warming" anymore, because this planet actually cooled in the past 100 years. There were two warming periods in the 20th century, followed by cooling periods. The new mantra became "Climate Change" because the climate certainly does change. The problem is that people with vested interests were claiming that humans were changing the climate to an unacceptable degree, which was utter nonsense.


CO2 is the new enemy, according to proponents of this theory and human emissions of this gas must be reduced, mainly by imposition of a carbon price. This is just a piece of spin that actually means a carbon tax. But how much CO2 do humans actually produce as a percentage of total global greenhouse gases? Here are the figures.

Greenhouse gases constitute approximately 1% of the atmosphere. They are:

Humans can’t do a thing about water vapour - it evaporates from the oceans that cover seven-tenths of the surface of the planet and is very important, because water vapour becomes rain that falls on land. Although it is considered a greenhouse gas, water vapour is essential to all life on earth.

Methane and other gases are emitted by volcanoes and other natural phenomena that are completely beyond the control of humans, therefore until a way is found to stop the 1500 active volcanoes on the surface of the planet and the tens of thousands of submarine volcanoes erupting at any one time on Earth, there is nothing that can be done about it.

So this leaves the 3.6% of the 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 comprises around 0.0036% of the total atmosphere. In other words, CO2 is nothing more than a trace gas that is less than four-hundredths of 1% of the atmosphere. However, it has to be always remembered that this gas is the pillar on which all life on earth relies and is neither a poison nor a pollutant.

But how much of this 0.036% CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans? The answer - around 3.4% of that 3.6% - 0.001% is emitted by humans. What does this mean?

Very simply, it means that globally, humans emit around 0.001% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the total human-caused CO2 emissions globally is a whole one-thousandth of 1% - a completely insignificant amount, because it means that 99.999% of all CO2 emissions occur naturally and humans cannot do anything about this.

So let’s say that all the humans on the entire planet shut down every industry and we all go back to shivering in caves and humans stop emitting that 0.001% carbon dioxide. Subtract it from the total CO2 emitted worldwide by all phenomena.

99.999% minus 0.001% equals 99.998%. That is virtually no change whatsoever to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact this is literally unmeasurable.


So what percentage of global CO2 is emitted by humans in Australia that could cause the government to want to impose a carbon tax to reduce it?

The answer - virtually nothing. Here are the facts to prove it.


There is only one real way to reduce pollution and that is to actually reduce harmful emissions. If the government was really serious about reducing emissions instead of merely trying to create and impose a new tax, it would require that all manufacturers install pollution metering devices and that realistic maximum levels of emissions be set by law. Any company that exceeded those levels would be heavily fined and persistent transgressors would be closed down for periods of time.

This is how the USA state of California reduced emissions from cars. It didn't impose a stupid tax that would have merely raised money but not reduced emissions. California legislated that all cars sold in that state by a certain year had to comply with a reduced maximum emission level or they could not be sold. Car makers screamed that it was impossible to meet those reduced emission levels, yet when the deadline was reached, all the car makers managed to meet those reduced levels.

So in California, a tax on car emissions was not required to reduce those emissions, merely a reduced maximum emission level enforced by law. But of course, governments around the world are always scrabbling to find ways of raising revenue, so scaring the citizenry with dire threats of man-caused global warming, climate change and other nonsense is a good way to soften people up for the imposition of a completely unjustified tax.


The former Labor government stated that the carbon tax would fund green power initiatives that would reduce and eventually eliminate coal-fired power stations. Wind turbines and solar power would be the preferred methods of generating electricity, however this Greenie insanity was shown to be a very costly waste of time and money all over the world.

Wind power is both inefficient, unreliable and very costly, compared to other forms of energy generation. Obviously when the wind is not blowing, which is very frequently, no electricity is being generated. However, the wind turbines require constant maintenance and repair and in many cases, take more power out of the electricity grid than they contribute.

In March 2012, a British study from the University of Edinburgh Billions Blown Away On Wind Power showed that not only was wind power extraordinarily expensive and inefficient, but it was also fairly useless in cutting CO2 emissions. In fact Holland completely abandoned its wind and solar generation plants and started building its first nuclear power plant in 40 years.


In a radical change of policy, the Netherlands is reducing its targets for renewable energy and slashing the subsidies for wind and solar power. It's also given the green light for the country's first new nuclear power plants for almost 40 years.

Why the change? Wind and solar subsidies are too expensive, the Financial Times Deutschland , reports.

Holland thus becomes the first country to abandon the EU-wide target of producing 20 per cent of its domestic power from renewables. This is a remarkable turnaround from a state that took the Kyoto Agreement seriously and chivvied other EU members into adopting renewable energy strategies. The FT reports that instead of the €4bn annual subsidy, it will be slashed to €1.5bn.

Holland's only nuclear reactor, the Borssele plant, opened in 1973, and was earmarked for closure by 2003. In 2006 the plant was allowed to operate until 2034, and the following year the government abandoned its opposition to new nuclear plants.

Critics of wind turbine expansion have found it difficult to get figures to judge whether the turbines are value for money. In January, Ofgem refused to disclose the output of each Feed-In Tariff (FiT) location.

The UK is expected to urge the installation of 10,000 new onshore turbines, even though some cost more in subsidies than than they produce, even at the generous Feed-In rates. Holland's policy U-turn means the EU renewable targets aren't set in stone - and there are more cost-effective ways of hitting the targets.

The Dutch realised that wind and solar power were so inefficient and expensive that these methods were simply not worth pursuing. The only guaranteed day and night supply of electricity that does not involve burning coal or gas is nuclear power and the Dutch have finally realised this and are opening up another nuclear power plant.

Following from this, the insanity of the former Australian Labor-Greens government was there for the world to see. Australia has the world's largest deposits of uranium and the nation could be completely energy-independent if this uranium was enriched and used in nuclear power stations all over Australia. There is no issue with geological stability and the stations could be built in areas where no oceanic phenomena such as tsunamis could affect them.

But the loony leftist ideology of the former Australian Labor-Greens did not allow this. Instead, Australia exports its uranium to other nations so that they can benefit from cheap and reliable electricity from nuclear power stations. Instead, Australia relies on dirty coal to generate electricity and a carbon tax that will not reduce emissions by one iota will partially fund wind and solar energy installations that most nations are abandoning as being inefficient and futile.

Even Britain is caught up in this insanity by proposing the installation of 10,000 wind turbines, even though every experience with them in other parts of the world has proven them to be a complete waste of time and money. But even Britain is not as stupid as Australia, as it has 10 nuclear power stations, although it has no uranium and has to import its nuclear fuel.

On the other hand, Australia has all the nuclear fuel it needs - and then some - but no nuclear power stations and none to be built in the future. Australia relies on mineral exports such as iron ore, zinc, aluminium and uranium to nations such as China and India to generate the wealth, but the Labor-Greens wanted to tax the daylights out of the mining companies who generate this wealth. The mantra for these punitive taxes was that the minerals actually belonged to the people of Australia and the extraordinary amount of taxes that the miners paidd already was not enough.


In any case, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a requirement for all life on this planet. All plant life absorbs CO2 and by photosynthesis, converts it to oxygen that humans and all living creatures require to exist. Without CO2, all life on Earth would die. CO2 is odourless, tasteless and non-toxic. CO2 is not a poison. Humans exhale CO2. Humans consume it in carbonated drinks. CO2 released by baking powder or yeast makes bread and cakes rise. CO2 is used in fire extinguishers and has many other applications of benefit to humans.

To state that CO2 is detrimental to this planet is a colossal lie, designed to scare gullible people into believing that a carbon tax would save them from disaster. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact it is a proven fact that farmers such as tomato growers actually deliberately increase the amount of CO2 in their greenhouses to promote the growth of their produce. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plant life will grow and thus produce more oxygen for us to breathe.

The other myth about CO2 is that it allegedly affects upper atmosphere in the way that gases such as sulphur dioxide break down the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. CO2 is heavier than air and it does not rise - it obviously stays at the surface of the planet, which is essential, because that is where the plant life lives and uses CO2 to grow and produce the oxygen that humans breathe. So CO2 has nothing to do with breaking down the ozone layer or being detrimental to the planet in any way.

Imposing a carbon tax merely resulted in increased cost of production that was passed onto consumers, but did not reduce CO2 emissions by industry. It was nothing more than another rapacious grab for money by government on the basis of deliberate misinformation and scaremongering.


On 18 March 2011, a British investment company sent out an emailed newsletter stating the following:

SUBJECT: Free Report - Carbon Market expected to double in price by 2013

The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre.

You can find out how to take advantage of this exciting new investment opportunity by simply downloading our FREE Investment Report.

Comprehensive trading strategies

Find out why the price of carbon is set to explode

Discover which credits FTSE 100 companies are buying

Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit market

Sceptre is a leading specialist carbon trading firm that specialises in premium Gold Standard and CDM emission reduction credits.

"Anyone going for the 'dash-for-cash' approach is in for a rude awakening when the carbon market picks up."
Diane Simiu, Carbon Analyst (Carbon Finance)

"Carbon trading will become the world's largest commodities market."
Louis Redshaw, Barclays Capital (New York Times)

Now does anybody with more than half a brain think that anybody is going to promote a moneymaking scheme where the basis of it is the alleged REDUCTION of the commodity that drives the scheme? The idea that was being sold to a gullible public was a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that would eventually eradicate man-caused pollution and thus save the world. So why would anybody invest in something that is going to be wiped out in the medium to long term?

Of course not. The moneymaking aspect of any scheme relies on it continuing and growing, therefore the sponsors of this scam were really relying on two things - that the human-caused CO2 emissions would continue and increase, thus increasing the profits from the scam and secondly, that the value of the carbon credits themselves would rise, just like stocks and shares, reaping huge financial rewards for those who trade in them and especially those who control the trading.


Regardless of what the Chicken Littles of the political and scientific community are trying to portray about alleged human-caused global warming, the earth has suffered from variations in overall temperature since it was formed, long before humans ever developed. The earth receives all energy from the sun, which has cycles, intense storms and sunspots that alter the radiation patterns the earth receives. The sunspot cycle is very well-known to affect radio transmissions, where interference and strange propagation effects occur around every 11 to 13 years or so and this phenomenon is very predictable.

The same happens with heat from the sun. As the sunspot cycle changes, so does the intensity of radiation hitting the earth, so the temperatures rise and fall accordingly. This fluctuation in average temperatures is certainly not caused by human activity to any extent that could even be measured.

Global warming and cooling is normal

Global warming and cooling is not unusual, but is the normal state of affairs. A stark example of this is Greenland. Why was this nation named Greenland? The answer is obvious. The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period, long before the Industrial Revolution and the alleged production of greenhouse gases by the current human activity on earth.

In April 2014, scientists found organic soil 10,000 feet beneath the ice sheet that stretches across 80% of Greenland. The discovery revealed that the central region of Greenland's tundra, once covered with forests, was locked away and preserved, as if in an icebox. So millions of years before the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland was a lush semi-tropical forest-covered island and its climate had nothing to do with any sort of human activity.

So what made Greenland less green? The simple answer is that the overall radiation from the sun reduced, thus lowering the temperature on this planet accordingly, which had nothing to do with anything the human race perpetrated or would even hope to match. Humans did not cause the earth to cool during the Ice Age or warm up to make Greenland a sub-tropical island and they are not causing global warming now.


There is a trend for politically correct academics, politicians and scientists to blame human activity for the increase in greenhouse gases, however this is nonsensical. For instance, right now there are more than 200 active volcanoes on this planet spewing out 6.5 gigatons (thousand million tons) of greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution every year. This has been going on for millions of years without any human intervention or assistance. In comparison, the entire sum of yearly greenhouse gases produced by all human activity is a negligible 0.054%. To think that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can refer to climate change as "the moral issue of our times" is preposterous in light of the fact that human contribution to greenhouse gases is less than minuscule and shows how some politicians will grasp at any popular issue in a bid to gain and retain office.


An excellent example of Mother Nature having infinitely more power than the entire human race is that of Mt Pinatubo, an active volcano in the Philippines. In June 1991, this volcano erupted in the second biggest such eruption recorded in the 20th Century. The effects of the event were felt worldwide. Mt Pinatubo ejected roughly 10 billion metric tons of magma and 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It sent large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulphuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5°C and ozone destruction increased substantially.


This is the effect of just one of the 200 or so active volcanoes on this planet, but the doomsayers are still running around trying to convince the world that greenhouse gases and global warming are caused by human activity. This is the height of arrogance, as nothing the human race has produced in the way of pollution over the past 40 million years could come close to the amount of pollutants that just one volcano, Mt Pinatubo, managed to spew out in one single day. To even give these people prominence is insane, as their entire philosophies can be easily shot down merely by some quick research. It is as if the whole climate change issue has become an industry, somewhat like religion, where millions of people are convinced to devoutly believe in something with little or no basis in fact.

However, the concept of global warming as a tool of economic and social engineering emerged into mainstream policy in 1991, by way of The Club Of Rome think tank. In their own words:

So the whole climate change scenario was planned by the movers and shakers a long time before Al Gore released his "Inconvenient Truth" movie that was so full of lies and misleading crap that virtually all of it has been thoroughly debunked. But the Club Of Rome members, some of the most influential people in the world, obviously got their scheme into motion in order to create a global currency, the carbon credit, which would eventually lead to a global government.


In a stunning proof that the human race is completely insignificant when it comes to affecting climate on this planet, researchers from the University of Alberta in Canada found that undersea volcanic activity caused a mass extinction in the seas 93 million years ago. In the so-called "anoxic event" of the late Cretaceous Period, the ocean depths became starved of oxygen, wiping out swathes of marine organisms.

The researchers stated that at the time of the anoxic event, the average temperature was nearly TWICE THAT OF TODAY. Palm trees grew in what would later become Alaska and large reptiles roamed northern Canada. The Arctic Ocean was ice-free and scientists think it would have had a temperature that would be described nowadays as lukewarm.

After the extinction, levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere dropped and Earth lurched into a sudden, but short-lived, period of cooling. Geologists have pondered for years as to the cause of this extraordinary event. Giant clams were among the organisms killed off According to Steve Turgeon and Robert Creaser from Alberta's department of Earth and atmospheric sciences, the answer to the cataclysm lies in volcanic eruptions which took place on the ocean floor. These appear to have altered the chemistry of the sea and possibly of the atmosphere as well.

Volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than man

One theory postulated by Tim Bralower, a geologist at Pennsylvania State University, is that the volcanoes disgorged clouds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, warming the climate to the extent that Earth's ocean circulation system ground to a near-halt. Beyond the surface layers, water was no longer turned over and lack of oxygen was the result.

So much for mankind having much effect on this planet. The truth is that anything the human race manages to emit in the form of pollutants is completely insignificant when compared to one volcanic eruption, let alone emissions from more than two hundred active volcanoes at any one time. Not only that, this research proves that this planet has undergone massive warming and cooling over its life with absolutely no help from the human race and will continue to do so.


Another piece of hysteria being promulgated by the enviro-nazis is the nonsense that global warming will cause the polar ice caps to melt and thus raise the level of the world's oceans. The stone-cold hard fact is that the polar ice caps have not melted in millions of years, even when global temperatures were far higher than they are at the moment, even as recently as 1300AD. They certainly will not melt if global temperatures rise by the 2º that is predicted over the next 100 years - and that prediction is only a guess, which so far has not shown any signs of materialising.

This is how it works. As soon as a glacier creeps forward and reaches the sea, its end breaks off and becomes an iceberg. That glacier probably did not start creeping later than 800 years ago, so outside temperatures would have had no effect on it. On top of that, millions of tons of snow are falling on the whole of Antarctica and the depth of that continent is actually increasing, not decreasing. So much for melting ice caps, because it is complete nonsense.

The planet has cooled in the past 100 years

The fact is that right now, the planet is cooler than it was 80 years ago. The hottest day in recorded history was in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. So where is any ocean rising? Why are we not choking on clouds of carbon dioxide? The reason is that carbon dioxide occupies only 0.035% of the atmosphere of Earth. Even if it tripled, which will certainly not happen, it would not have any significant effect except to promote plant life, as plants require carbon dioxide like humans need oxygen.


To clearly show that global warming does not rely on human activities, a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience revealed that palm trees flourished in the Arctic during a brief sweltering period about 50 million years ago.

Appy Sluijs of Utrecht University in the Netherlands said, "The Arctic would have looked very similar to the vegetation we now see in Florida." Evidence of palms has never been found so far north before.

Palm trees in the Arctic

The scientists, sampling sediments on a ridge on the seabed that was about 500km from the North Pole 53.5 million years ago, found pollens of ancient palms, as well as of conifers, oaks, pecans and other trees.

"The presence of palm pollen implies that coldest month mean temperatures over the Arctic land masses were no less than 8C, according to scientists, based in the Netherlands and Germany. That contradicted computer model simulations, also used to predict future temperatures, that suggested winter temperatures were below freezing even in the unexplained hothouse period that lasted between 50,000 and 200,000 years in the Eocene epoch.

Sluijs said that it was also striking that palms, which do not lose their leaves in winter, grew in an area where the sun does not shine for about five months. Experiments with modern palms indicate that they can survive prolonged darkness. The scientists said that presence of palms - it was not clear if they were trees or plants - hinted that the modern climate system could yield big surprises.

One possibility for the ancient spike in temperatures was an abrupt rise in carbon dioxide levels, to far beyond concentrations now. That might have been caused by volcanic eruptions, or a melt of frozen methane trapped in the seabed.

This study clearly shows that this planet has undergone many changes in climate, none of them caused by human activity. When it comes down to a contest between solar, cosmic, volcanic and other natural phenomena and human greenhouse emissions, the human activity is less than negligible. One volcano will spew out more greenhouse gases in a day than man can emit in a decade. One solar prominence will spike temperatures on earth far more than a century of human emissions.


Despite the scaremongering by those with vested interests in pushing the man-caused global warming myth, virtually all news reports around the world seem to indicate that the planet is suffering global cooling. For instance in the past, most summer days in Sydney Australia are anywhere from 35ºC up to a scorching 45ºC. However, the summer of 2008-2009 is one of the coolest on record with typical temperatures in Sydney in January 2009 being around 24ºC during the day and falling to a chilly 12ºC at night.

The cool Australian temperatures in summer are not a one-off phenomenon Cooling is occurring globally. For instance, on 09 January 2009, a news report from Britain clearly demonstrates the myth of man-caused global warming in the present era. Note that the night temperature in Farnborough was the coldest recorded since 1923. Supporting this is the report from the British Bureau of Meteorology that stated at the beginning of January 2009 that 2008 was the coldest year in the past century.

In December 2013, a new look at NASA satellite data revealed that the earth set a new record for the lowest recorded temperature. It happened in August 2010 when it hit minus 94.7C. Then on 31 July 2013, it came close again: minus 92.9C. The old record had been minus 89.2C.


It is an event as rare as it is spectacular - but yesterday, after a week of sub-zero conditions, the sea around Britain began to freeze. Instead of waves gently lapping the shore, walkers in Sandbanks, Dorset found swathes of ice stretching up to 20m along the shore.

It is highly unusual for Britain's coastline to freeze, but the combination of a sustained cold snap and the protected location of the Dorset peninsula made it possible. At Padstow in Cornwall in another sheltered harbour, seagulls skimmed across a layer of ice. And in South Wales, boats were frozen in their moorings on the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal in Pontypool. Because of its salt content, sea water freezes solid at about minus 2C.

Kevin Horsburgh, a scientist at Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool said, "What generally happens is when the surface freezes, it gets heavier and sinks. The heat in the water needs to be extracted in order for the surface to stay frozen. In order for that to happen you need a long and sustained period of sub-zero temperatures."

Horsburgh added that sheltered peninsulas and harbours were more likely to freeze than open coastline. "A harbour has quite a low level of salt content because it has fresh water from rivers running into it." he said. "The saltier the water, the less chance of it freezing."

The cold snap showed no signs of abating yesterday. On Tuesday night temperatures plummeted as low as minus 12ºC in Benson, Oxfordshire. At Bournemouth Airport it was minus 11ºC, the coldest January night since 1963. Meanwhile in Farnborough, Hampshire, where the thermometer also recorded minus 11ºC, it was the coldest January night on record since 1926.


Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March 2007, raising fears that - far from warming - the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, according to astronaut and geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA. He said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed no spots on the sun.

Chapman stated that the world cooled quickly between January 2007 and January 2008, by about 0.7C. "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman wrote in The Australian on 23 April 2008.

Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.


Federal Liberal Member of Parliament Dennis Jensen, who has a PhD in physics, addressed Parliament and produced the latest scientific evidence showing conclusively that the world stopped warming a decade ago. He presented charts from the four international bodies that measure world temperature, including Britain's Hadley Centre, showing that since 1998 world temperatures have stayed flat, contradicting all official predictions. Jensen stated: "This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct."

The University of Alabama in Huntsville, one of those four temperature monitors, found that the temperature of the lower troposphere has cooled more in the past 16 months than it warmed in the previous 100 years. In fact, 31,000 scientists, including Australia's Professor Bob Carter, signed a petition declaring there was still no proof humans were warming the world to hell.

Professor Tom Hubble of Sydney University stated in 2005 that natural climate change, of similar and greater size as that projected for anthropogenic greenhouse warming, has occurred many times during the last million years and as far as research has shown, throughout the entire history of the planet.


Here is a small sample of some of the most eminent scientists of the current era and their conclusions about the myth of global warming:


In September 2013, a leaked draft of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest assessment of the state of the climate and global warming - AR5 - says the earth has been warming at a rate of 0.12C each decade since 1951. This is an admission that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate it had claimed in 2007. But it says the last major IPCC report, released in 2007 and called AR4, claimed the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade.

Australian scientists who have questioned the way the IPCC assessments predict the rate of climate change and the impact of man-made pollution on the earth's warming, said that the leaked report confirmed forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong. But typically, the key Australian Labor figures, including shadow minister Mark Butler, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and former Climate Change Minister Penny Wong ducked questions about how much they relied on IPCC science in introducing their climate policies including the stupid and completely ineffective carbon tax.

The leaked draft of the summary of the AR5 assessment admitted that scientists who contribute to the IPCC accepted that their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures, and not taken enough notice of natural variability. The Summary For Policymakers recognises a global warming pause and concedes that climate scientists' computer models did not predict it.

The one thing that these people do not admit is that their use of the word carbon is wrong and deliberately so. To the average person, carbon is that black solid sooty stuff found in chimneys, but it is certainly not in the atmosphere. These scientist are referring to the gas carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air and thus cannot remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time, but sinks to the surface of the earth, where it is absorbed by trees and plants and the oceans. So the proponents of the great atmospheric carbon scare are lying and misleading anybody that listens to them.

Even worse, these IPCC scientists cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997 and that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Those scientists have finally been forced to admit that large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250AD, centuries before the Industrial Revolution and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

Australian scientist Professor Bob Carter, science policy adviser for the Institute of Public Affairs and one of the leaders of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) said that the science of climate change was not settled. "Scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature," Carter said.

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery's agency refused to comment, which was not surprising, given the fact that not one of Flannery's dire predictions of empty dams, permanent droughts, extreme weather events and other catastrophes have failed to materialise. In fact in 2013, Australia's dams were overflowing, there was no drought, weather events were fairly normal and predictable and nothing much happened. Of course Flannery did exactly what the Australian public expected - he ran and hid.

The fact is that the planet heats and cools in a cyclic fashion, usually about every 800 years. The last time was around 1200AD, when it was far hotter on Earth than it is now. However, the planet is in a slow heating cycle, so it is expected that it will continue to warm, however not because of anything humans do. The problem is that unscrupulous people have used this natural global warming phenomenon to create a false pretext to make money by claiming that humans are causing this and inventing carbon trading to take advantage of the gullibility of people. Trading carbon credits cannot possibly affect the planet, only the people who will pay dearly for enriching the scammers who will profit from this nonsense.


In December 2013, a group of people took a cruise to Antarctica aboard a Russian vessel, Akademik Shokalskiy. The ship became entrapped by deadly sea ice and attempts to break through the ice by an Australian icebreaker the Aurora Australis failed. Around 70 passengers were trapped on board the Russian ship, with news reports stating that the lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was observed in August 2013.

To demonstrate the perpetration of the climate change scam, virtually no mainstream newspaper reported that many of the passengers aboard the Akademik Shokalskiy were climate scientists on a trip to try and prove that the planet was warming. They went there to show that sea ice was disappearing due to climate change, but there they were, stuck in sea ice that was building up to a massive extent, where an icebreaker could not even make a path through to rescue them.

This is yet another example of so-called climate scientists, who prefer to believe their cockamamy theories about global warming and man-caused climate change, yet refuse to believe hard facts and conditions that they are experiencing and seeing with their own eyes. It is sheer insanity for climate change scientists to believe and promote a theory when facts indicate the exact opposite, but This is exactly what these people on board that Russian vessel stuck in massive sea ice were doing.

And the media was complicit in this lunacy by suppressing the fact that these passengers who were stuck in that sea ice were actually climate scientists trying to prove the opposite of what they were actually experiencing.


Carbon dioxide is nearly double the molecular weight of air. So how then could carbon dioxide rise 35km up in the atmosphere to form a greenhouse cover that would increase the heat of this planet? The answer is - it can't. Carbon dioxide does not rise. If it did, carbon dioxide fire extinguishers would not work because the gas would rise into the atmosphere instead of sinking onto the fire. A balloon blown up with human breath containing carbon dioxide would fly straight up as if it was filled with helium, but it does not. The balloon sinks to the ground. The evidence is there to see all around us.

According to most climate scientists, the increase in carbon dioxide is due to the warming of the oceans, however it takes around 800 years for the oceans to heat up enough to release a noticeable amount of extra carbon dioxide. Around the 15th century, the earth went through a very warm period, where arctic areas such as Greenland were actually very warm. Logically speaking, it has taken from the 15th century, around 800 years, to now, for the oceans to heat up and release this extra carbon dioxide, which is occurring right now.

But was the heating of the earth back in the 15th century caused by the activities of humans? Of course not, and nobody in their right mind would suggest otherwise, but the religious-like fervour and vested interests of the "human-caused global heating" brigade would have us think that the extra carbon dioxide appearing on the planet is being caused by human activity now.


In the face of so much overwhelming evidence that completely refutes the allegations that humans are somehow responsible for climate change and greenhouse gases, it pays to examine the motives of some of the more prominent proponents. And who could be more prominent in the climate change industry than one-time US presidential candidate Al Gore, whose movie, An Inconvenient Truth, purported to show that humans are responsible for climate change.

Journalist Andrew Bolt pointed out at least eleven serious untruths or unsubstantiated claims in Gore's movie. In fact a British judge has instructed teachers in the UK to tell their pupils about this and teacher guidance notes that accompany the movie had to be rewritten to show this. Here are the eleven claims that Bolt demonstrates as being patently false or misleading.


What very few people realise is that Al Gore and some of his close associates are in charge of a number of large hedge funds and stand to literally make billions of dollars in the carbon credits scheme, which should actually be called the carbon credits scam. Gore has already expressed his disdain for the human race, when he publicly stated that he would like to be reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to deal with the human population. How can a person with such a mindset have any credibility whatsoever? To think that the Americans came within a whisker of electing this man to the most powerful position on the planet is terrifying.

Nothing more than a colossal scam

The whole climate change and greenhouse gas issue is a colossal scam, perpetrated by people who have a vested interest in scaring the population of this planet into pouring untold billions of dollars into their pockets for schemes to supposedly reduce global warming, when there is no chance that anything the human race could do, in competition with the sun and natural phenomena. These people have found a lucrative replacement for organised religion to skim fortunes for themselves and generate an entirely new industry out of the ignorance of the average human, who tends to believe whatever he is told at face value instead of researching and questioning the motives of these scammers.

Al Gore's personal fortune goes through the roof

In July 2009, it was reported on US Fox News that Al Gore, the person who really kicked off the myth of man-caused climate change has seen his personal fortune increase by a whopping $5000%. Gore was a very wealthy man prior to his Chicken Little routine, but he has made himself richer beyond his wildest dreams by propagating his baloney about the human race causing the planet to warm up.

Al Gore does not practice what he preaches

But does Al Gore himself really believe the doom he predicts in An Inconvenient Truth? Obviously not, because in just one of his three homes, he uses 20 times more power than the average American family uses in a year. So much for Chicken Little Gore and his cries for everybody to rein in their carbon emissions, when it is obvious that Gore is an unashamed hypocrite.

In fact whenever he makes a speech, Al Gore now refuses to take questions from the floor because on previous occasions, he was exposed by the questioners as a complete fraud. In the face of all his dire predictions of catastrophic rising sea levels, Gore bought a multi-million dollar waterfront property in Florida, just metres from the sea. It is obvious that Gore does not believe what he says and does not practice what he preaches.


During the premiere of his "An Inconvenient Truth" piece of fiction, Gore said that "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return." In Gore's own words, he claimed we were in "a true planetary emergency." Gore is probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement.

The terrible truth for Gore is that there is no planetary emergency. Not one of the dire predictions he and the rest of the alarmist community made has come to pass. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that they have been running a racket. Here's how we know:

  1. Since around 1997 or so, Earth hasn't warmed. Yes, 2015 supposedly smashed the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record, or maybe "not even close to the hottest year on record," says James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. The global average temperature, a devilish thing to determine anyway, depends on what temperature readings are being used and who is "adjusting" the data to fit their political purposes. The scientific community cannot be trusted to provide honest numbers. And 2015 was, after all, an El Nino year. Higher temperatures, with no link to man's activities, were expected.

  2. Predictions that climate change, the rebranding of "global warming" when it turned out that predicted warming wasn't happening, would cause catastrophic weather damage haven't panned out. German insurance giant Munich Re stated that losses from natural disasters were lower in 2015 than in 2014 and lowest since 2009. The facts are sharply at odds with Gore's 2012 claim that "dirty weather" caused by "dirty fossil fuel" has created "extreme weather" that "is happening all over the world with increasing frequency."

  3. Despite all the self-congratulatory international conferences and pseudo-agreements, the world has done nothing to "fight global warming." Gore cannot claim that his deadline has been extended because some governments have forced their citizens to cut carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 levels keep climbing and now exceed 401 parts per million in the atmosphere. It is simply not the dangerous greenhouse gas we've repeatedly been told it is.

  4. in the mid- to late-2000s, Gore repeatedly predicted that an ice-free Arctic Ocean was coming soon. But as usual, his fortune-telling was wrong. By 2014, Arctic ice had grown thicker and covered a greater area than it did when he made his prediction.

  5. Gore's movie, which somehow won an Oscar, was found by a British judge to contain nine errors. The judge said it could not be shown to students unless it included a notice pointing out the errors.

Gore simply cannot be believed, but unfortunately the UN is part of this racket and many nations have subscribed to the fiction of human-caused "global warming" and since the globe did not warm, "climate change" - an each way bet. The many billions of dollars that have been ripped from the taxpayers of many nations to feed this fiction is absolutely obscene.


It is preposterously easy to prove that the scaremongering about rising sea levels is completely wrong. In 1841, over 170 years ago, Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross carved a mean sea level benchmark in rocks at the seashore on the Isle Of The Dead in Tasmania.

Mean Sea Level Mark in 1841
Antarctic explorer Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marked mean sea level in 1841

FThe photo, time and date-stamped on 20 January 2004, 163 years after Ross made that benchmark, shows the sea at low tide. The tidal range in that area is less than 1 metre. The photo has had the benchmark highlighted in white for clarity.

However, it is easy to see that in around 170 years, virtually nothing has changed in regard to sea levels. The benchmark made by Ross shows the mean sea level - the average between low and high tide. The low tide shown in that photo appears to be around 1 metre below the benchmark, so it can be safely assumed that the mean sea level in over 1½ centuries has probably fallen slightly, not risen at all.


On 08 November 2008 in the Sydney Morning Herald, journalist Michael Duffy reported that he attended a talk by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the University of NSW. He realised that the data presented as facts about global warming was blatantly wrong. It is such an excellent analysis and revelation of why scientists are jumping on the climate change bandwagon, that it is reproduced here in its entirety.


By Michael Duffy - 08 November 2008

Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply.

As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate (than before)".

Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear.

So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous, and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.

Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself had fudged only a few hours earlier?

In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned about it on Lateline. Still, there's no doubt a majority of climate scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.

Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we're right, then an awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?

This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among American scientists.

Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is attached to the scientific grants. Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific goals.

"In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and (computer) programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage."

Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.

Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.

None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some money from energy companies.)

Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.

Someone else who's looked closely at scientific journals (although not specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his case "quite convincingly".)

Why might this be so? Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication practices might be distorting science.

It's possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to involve) disastrous change rather than stability. Rajenda Pachauri's recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.


The true reason for the climate change conference in Denmark in December 2009 to discuss and sign the Copenhagen Treaty was exposed by leading world climate change expert Lord Christopher Monckton. After carefully analysing all 200 pages of the treaty, Monckton discovered that this was a thinly veiled plot to force nations of the world to sign over their sovereignty and control to whoever was going to administer the treaty - in other words, a new world government.

Go and watch the video clip of Lord Monckton's speech called Goodbye Democracy - Hello One World Government and see how this man reveals the sinister nature of this treaty. It is obvious that the propaganda machine of the global warming and climate change brigade has been working overtime to convince the gullible people of the world that man is causing global warming, when all the evidence points to the opposite. Nations that sign the Copenhagen Treaty will sign away their rights, freedoms and control - all on the basis of a gigantic scam.


People who understand finance will know that merely printing money does not give it any value. Money is actually given value by creating debt and the cost of that debt is called interest. The disintegration of the US dollar, the current world reserve currency, has prompted the creation of a new currency - the carbon credit. This amazing scam relies on generating fear and panic about global warming, then convincing nations that they need to purchase carbon credits to negate their greenhouse gas emissions. Thus the debt is created that gives the carbon credit an intrinsic value from nothing more than scaremongering.

So how would carbon trading help contain the alleged global warming? This is how it supposedly works. A nation whose factories spew out pollutants would have to buy carbon credits from a nation that produces less carbon emissions. For instance, a heavy polluter such as Romania would have to buy a certain amount of carbon credits each year from a lesser polluting nation such as New Zealand, to allow Romania to continue to run its polluting factories. The area around Romania still would suffer pollution, but the operators of the carbon credit scam would rake off the fees and interest generated by the transaction of carbon credits between these two nations.

Carbon trading will not reduce global warming

The problem is that carbon trading will not reduce pollution or global warming, because it is merely a mechanism that shifts the pollution from one place to another - for a fee. In theory, the nett amount of pollution on the planet would remain the same. Governments continue to buy into this scam, but not one of them has explained how the carbon trading scheme will reduce man-made pollution or how this cockamamy illogical concept would reduce the alleged heating of the planet, even though the evidence shows that the planet is cooling.

"It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 year's time. It's horseshit!"
Michael O'Leary, CEO of airline Ryanair


In July 2008, Professor of Economics Ross Garnaut delivered his report on climate change to the Australian Government, where he suggested that a carbon trading scheme be implemented as soon as practicable. The costs of this would obviously be passed onto consumers, but the principle of this scheme is insane and will certainly not make any impact whatsoever on this mythical man-caused global warming. This is how it will work in Australia.

Nonsensical and illogical theory

A business that emits more carbon than its quota allows can buy carbon credits from a company that emits less carbon than its quota, allowing the bigger polluter to keep polluting at the same level. In other words, there will still be the same amount of carbon going into the atmosphere, but according to the carbon credits proponents, this is somehow supposed to reduce carbon pollution. All one can say about this idiocy is that whoever agrees with this cockamamy rubbish does not understand simple arithmetic and has no logical processes in their brains.

Australian Labor Government perpetrates the scam

However, it is literally guaranteed that the Australian Labor government, having already sold us down the river by signing the ludicrous Kyoto Protocol, will implement the carbon trading scheme. This will cost the Australian consumer billions of dollars, simply because prices of virtually every product will have to go up to pay for the carbon credits. In other words, the schemers behind this insanity have created a currency by creating a debt, where there was no need for it and the consumer is again the sucker. The problem is that the consumer has no choice in the matter, being held at the point of the tax gun by the government. Even worse, many people in Australia have fallen for the claptrap and are willing to pay more for goods and services because they think that it will improve the environment. They are so wrong.


If Australia wanted to reduce carbon emissions, a carbon trading scheme is certainly not required. All the government has to do is to impose strict emission levels on all businesses, cars, public transport and anything else that pollutes and impose heavy fines and the threat of closure on any entity that exceeds those emission levels. This was done in the USA, where California introduced what was seen to be the most draconian low emission levels for motor vehicles. All new cars sold after a certain date had to emit less than a very low prescribed level of pollution. Car makers screamed that it could not be done, however by the time the deadline was reached, all car makers had actually met and exceeded those low emission levels.

The solution is too easy, but does not create a new tax. So to reduce carbon emissions, the Australian government merely needs to do the same, but of course this will not happen because the tax rake-off is far too tempting. As usual, no matter what political side of the fence the government happens to be on, it will endeavour to wring out every last cent from the hapless citizenry. This imbecilic carbon trading regime is just another way of fleecing us all again.


Unless human ingenuity can somehow control the cyclic radiation patterns and other solar phenomena and put a plug in every active volcano, we are stuck with periodic global warming and cooling and greenhouse gases. So when politicians and others trumpet about these phenomena being caused by human activity, tell them to get lost, because they are lying to you.