Scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.


I personally have no doubt that humans are the direct cause of Climate Change via increases of CO2 into the environment.

What mystifies me is: If I can work it out after reading the data, using some common sense, and trusting 90% of the specialist scientists.

What has gone wrong in the brain boxes of the Climate Change Skeptics?

It is plain to see that for every 1 so called scientist that is a skeptic.. There are 9 that say he/she is wrong.. or delusional.. or simply “paid off” by big business.

I have been increasingly encountering (politically right wing) people that deny the validity of the Climate Change science.

Lets talk plain here.. The Science is either right or wrong. The outcome of the question shouldn’t be determined by what political persuasion you are.

Yet somehow.. Politically Right Wing people seem to deny the existence of climate change.

Why is that?

Are these people so short sighted that they cannot see the damage that climate change will do to the world? Do they not care what kind of an existence they will inflict upon their surviving extended family members? Do they not care of the future of the human race itself? Are they so stubborn in their views that they would condemn the whole race to a hostile future rather than to admit that they were wrong? Or are they simply greedy? Their moral compass bought and paid for with the biblical 30 pieces of silver the corporations freely offer? Too lazy to bother reading the material? Too trusting of their right wing political leadership than to be bothered?

That’s why I decided to name and shame Climate Change Skeptics in this section of my Blog.

Lets follow the money (and/or the right wing ideology) and see where it gets us..

2015-01-21 Conspiracy, Climate Change Skeptics

Interesting times :) I “mirrored” the old site b4 it was “changed”.. enjoy…

Climate change in Australia
Climate Change in Australia

Climate Change in Australia shows how Australia’s climate has changed and how it may change in the future.

This website provides information on:

Observed climate change over Australia

Likely causes of climate change

Likely future changes to Australia’s climate

Changes to our climate have the potential to create major impacts on human and natural systems. Further changes to our climate are likely if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase.

A range of material is available for download, including a technical report, summaries, brochure and poster. The technical report, developed by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, presents estimates of projections for climate variables such as temperature, rainfall, evaporation and wind.

Maps indicating projected changes to climate can be generated for selected regions, years, seasons, emission scenarios and climate variables.

Australian climate change projections are based on international climate change research and build on a large body of work undertaken for the Australian region. The projections have been generated using data from 23 climate models and global warming estimates from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The projections will be updated in 2014.

Projections are particularly valuable for general impact and risk assessment studies. Chapter 6 of the Technical Report provides important guidance on using climate projections in impact assessments.

Further information about how to use single model projections for impact assessments is available at OzClim.

Subscribe here for updates about Climate Change in Australia.

The projections were undertaken as part of the Australian Climate Change Science Program, a joint initiative of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO.

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate 2012 reports that:  

  • Australian annual average daily mean temperatures have increased by 0.9 °C since 1910.
  • Global average mean sea level for 2011 was 210 mm above the level in 1880.
  • Sea surface temperatures have increased by about 0.8 °C since 1910.
  • The main cause of the observed increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is the combustion of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.
  • Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 1.0 to 5.0 °C by 2070 when compared with the climate of recent decades.

Australia's Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station shows current greenhouse gas concentrations in the Southern Hemisphere.


Australia's Future Climate

Click on your region of interest on the map or menu below to access the latest climate change projections.

Victoria New South Wales / ACT Queensland Northern Territory Western Australia South Australia Tasmania
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Bureau of Meteorology
Climate Change in Australia was developed by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology in partnership with the
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency through the Australian Climate Change Science Program
Climate Change in Australia
web design and development by Web Initiatives web design

0 Add Comment

2012-05-24 Conspiracy, Climate Change Skeptics

The great global warming swindle - Full version

I have been encountering more Global Warming/Climate Change skeptics recently. Politically speaking.. Queensland has recently rejected the (slightly left of right wing) Australian Labor Party and turned to the (very right wing) Liberal/National Party.

As a result the new (Liberal/Nation Party) State Premier (Campbell Newman) has decided to do away with 9 environmental (anti global warming) programs that the previous Labor Party had initiated.

Much to my dismay, Seemingly with the blessing of MOST Queenslanders!!

So I thought I should try and understand what the opposing skeptical argument actually is.

As a result I found this video on youtube.

Now 5 mins with google exposes most the players in this video for what they really are..

I believe that they either have a vested interest in denying Global Warming..


They have been misquoted and taken out of context.

Lets take it from the top….

  • Martin Durkin is a television producer and director. Through his production company Kugelblitz, he has made several television documentaries for Channel 4 in the UK which have caused controversy over their anti-environmentalist stance. He is managing director of WAG TV, a London-based independent TV production company. Durkin has links with the LM network.


  • Timothy F. Ball has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) and numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.


  • Nir J. Shaviv says that he is not funded by the oil industry or large corporations. He actually stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favour of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power.


  • Nigel Lawson founded a climate-change think-tank, The Global Warming Policy Foundation. The GWPF chooses not to disclose its funding sources. However, it does state that does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”


  • Ian Clark is listed by the Competetive Enterprise Institute (CEI) as an “Arctic specialist” and media contact. ExxonSecrets also lists Clark as a “scientist on call” for CEI.


  • Piers Corbyn states “Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around”.


  • John R. Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.


  • Philip Stott says “… Remember that humans have survived climate change for thousands of years, not by playing God with one or two politically selected factors, but by adapting to the new conditions, whether hot, cold, dry or wet. And, moreover, what about the opportunities global warming presents - far better than cooling any day!,” he wrote in an opinion column published by the BBC.


  • Paul Reiter’s name appears on Senator Inhofe’s List of “prominent scientists” who deny man-made global warming. A website debunking the list describes Reiter as one of 84 “scientists” who have taken industry money.


  • Richard Lindzen has published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.


  • Patrick Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry and in defence of biotechnology. In October 2008, Greenpeace issued a statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.


  • Roy W. Spencer co-authored an ISA report refuting the work of a religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The ISA report was titled A Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor: an Evangelical Response to Global Warming. Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including six that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.


  • Patrick Michaels is connected to more than 11 think-tanks and associations that have received money from ExxonMobil, many of which have gone on to sow doubt about human-induced global warming. Michaels has also admitted that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry.


  • Nigel Calder “It’s likely that CO2 has some warming effect, but real proof of that hypothesis is tricky. You have to confirm by observation exactly how the CO2 changes the situation at different altitudes in the atmosphere and in different regions of the world. For example, CO2 is supposed to warm the upper air faster than the surface, but the measurements don’t show that happening. When the CO2 effect is eventually pinned dow, it will probably turn out to be weaker and much less worrisome than predicted by the global warming theorists.”


  • James Shikwati promotes freedom of trade as the driving solution to poverty in Africa. He has made comments which imply that aid towards Africa does more harm than good to their people, based on the central arguments that it is mainly used either by politicians as a tool to manipulate people and influence votes, or as a mechanism for dumping subsidised foreign agricultural products onto local markets at below cost making it nearly impossible for African farmers to compete.


  • Syun Akasofu asserts that at least some of the contribution to global climate change comes from the natural effect of “recovery from the Little Ice Age,” rather than from human activity. However, he does admit that global warming is occurring, especially in the Arctic, and that this climate change “consists of both natural change and the greenhouse effect.” His critics respond that the Little Ice Age is somewhat of a climate change myth. The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age “may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat around the planet,” but the “continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be explained by increases in solar radiation alone.


  • Fred Singer has been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute. “A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry” who “is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation.”


  • Carl Wunsch says his: discussion was grossly distorted by context… My appearance in the “Global Warming Swindle” is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped. He has also said: Durkin says that I reacted to the way the film portrayed me because of pressure from my colleagues. This is completely false. I did hear almost immediately from colleagues in the UK who saw the film who didn’t berate me. They simply said, “This doesn’t sound like you, this seems to be distorting your views, you better have a look at this”.


  • Eigil Friis-Christensen has stated quite clearly and publicly that not only was his published data falsified by the film-maker, but that his views were knowingly and fundamentally misrepresented by the film.


  • Frederick Seitz was the founding chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, and was its chairman until 2001. The Institute was founded to argue for President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, but “in the 1990s it branched out to become one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk the science of climate change.” A 1990 report co-authored with Institute co-founders Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg “centrally informed the Bush administration’s position on human-induced climate change”. The Institute also promoted environmental skepticism more generally. In 1994, the Institute published a paper by Seitz titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. Seitz questioned the view that CFCs “are the greatest threat to the ozone layer”.


  • Paul Driessen is associated with numerous right-wing think tanks and organizations skeptical of man-made climate change. He is best known for his first book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death where he discusses what he considers negative aspects of the environmental movement. “Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society – and bring factories, offices and economies to a screeching halt in states that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.”



  • “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle


  • “The Great Global Warming Swindle”


  • Climategate 2.0: Mann calls Swindle producer a ‘right wing hack’


  • Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz


  • The Great Global Warming Swindle (Wikipedia)


0 Add Comment

Bookmark this on Delicious

SEO-AU Links Best INFP Websites - Click here to Vote for this site!