• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Uncategorized

New Theory for ‘Mountain Growth’

June 9, 2008 By jennifer

WASHINGTON – The Andes Mountains may have growth spurts, doubling their height in as little as 2 million to 4 million years, US researchers reported on Thursday.

Their findings suggest that current theories about plate tectonics — the process that creates and moves continents, giving rise to mountain ranges — may need updating…

Garzione proposes an alternative theory — that delamination causes the root to heat up and ooze downward like a drop of thick syrup, abruptly breaking free and sinking into the hot mantle. The mountains above, suddenly free of the root, then spring up…

Read more here: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48697/story.htm
Story from Planetark via Reuters. Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and Xavier Briand

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Changing Attitudes to GM Foods: Craig Cormick on ABC Radio

June 9, 2008 By jennifer

“We have long known that concerns about a new and unknown technology diminish over time, and in regard to gene technology and biotechnology we’re now seeing that played out in the public’s minds…

“The second factor was a perception that genetically modified crops could be of benefit in helping to address a range of new concerns in people’s minds, which included drought, climate change, rising salinity levels and fuel shortages…

“Now this is going to present a challenge for many environmental groups who will be overjoyed to know that the public are increasingly concerned about the environment, but will be less overjoyed to know that the public strongly support gene technology as a possible solution to environmental problems, when many environmental groups are not particularly supportive of gene technology.

“I suspect that many of these groups might need to reconsider, or update, their positions and at least consider that the mantra of ‘all gene technology is bad’ should be re-examined carefully and modified to a more realistic statement of ‘some gene technology is bad, but some gene technology is good.’ …

Read more here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2259355.htm#transcript

Of course there is already an environmental group that recognises the benefits of technology: The Australian Environment Foundation.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Biotechnology, Food & Farming

Global Warming Mad House – Agenda in Collapse – Via Marc Morano

June 7, 2008 By jennifer

1. Wall Street Journal – Climate Change Collapse – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face. Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. “With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,” says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. “This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”

2. The Politico: Dems yank global warming bill – June 6, 2008.
Excerpt: Apparently three days of debate was enough for what many senators called “the most important issue facing the planet.” With little chance of winning passage of a sweeping 500-page global warming bill, the Senate Democratic leadership is planning to yank the legislation after failing to achieve the 60-vote threshold needed to move the bill to the next stage. After a 48-36 vote on the climate change bill, the Senate is likely to move on to a separate energy debate next week. The legislation collapsed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the poor timing of debating a bill predicted to increase energy costs while much of the country is focused on $4-a-gallon gas. On top of that, a number of industrial state Democrats like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio were uncomfortable with the strong emissions caps that would have created a new regime of regulations for coal, auto and other manufacturing industries. Republicans, for the most part, held firm against a bill they said would cost billions in regulations while pushing the cost of gas higher. Seven Republicans, mostly moderates, voted for the procedural motion on the legislation while four Democrats voted against it.

3. Global Warming Politics: – The ‘Global Warming’ Mad House – By UK Professor Philip Stott – June 6, 2008.
The ‘global warming’ mad house is flourishing! I have rarely known a couple of days in which so many ‘global warming’ foibles and follies have been exposed for the nonsense that they are. Here is my Friday round-up for you to savour: First, and by far the most significant, the debate on the climate-change bill, the Climate Tax Bill, in the U.S. Senate has been reduced to a farce, with even many Democrats now wanting to kill it off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Indeed, we may have to witness the bizarre spectacle of Republicans trying to prolong the debate in order to embarrass Democrats even further. […] Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, is reported as observing: “‘This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.’” […] Indeed. ‘Global warming’ is thus off track on every front, from the railways of the UK to the floor of the U.S. Senate. When will this ‘global warming’ madhouse be closed down and confined to the dustbin of history? Or trash can?

4. Associated Press – $45 trillion needed to combat warming – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a “energy revolution” that would greatly reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

5. The Washington Independent: Senate Kills Climate Change Bill – June 6, 2008.
Excerpt: The Senate this morning brought an early if expected end to the chamber’s global warming debate, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to kill a GOP filibuster. Sixteen senators were absent during the vote, including likely presidential nominees John McCain, who opposes the bill for what he considers a dearth of nuclear power provisions, and Barack Obama, who supports the proposal, which boasts a 66 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

6. New York Times Blog – James Hansen: Tax C02 Emitters; Pay Citizens – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Even as Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to move forward with global warming legislation today, other approaches to federal climate action have already begun to percolate. James E. Hansen, the NASA climate expert who has long been a bellwether for global warming campaigners, has strongly endorsed one of the less-popular options — a variant on the “cap and dividend” system for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. (This is very different from the “cap and trade” mechanism in the blocked Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill, which would invest revenue in a host of ways, with little money returning directly to taxpayers.)

7. India News- Reality Check: ‘INDIA WON’T CUT CO2 EMISSIONS AT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVATION’ – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Namo Narain Meena said Thursday.’India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,’ Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day. Though India has no commitment to reduce the global warming gases under the Kyoto Protocol, in recent climate change conferences many developed countries have said India needs to reduce the greenhouse burden.

8. Courier Mail – WORKERS UNION, BUSINESS LEADERS WARN CLIMATE POLICY MAY CRIPPLE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: AUSTRALIAN industries may be crippled if they are forced to meet ambitious targets for tackling climate change, the Rudd Government has been warned.
The Queensland Government, Australian Workers Union and big business across the nation fear forcing businesses to pay for the pollution they create would cause economic upheaval.The State Government fired a warning to Canberra in Tuesday’s budget, urging it not to set over-ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions for fear of destabilising the economy.

9. National Post – As Goes the Economy, So Goes Environmentalism – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: If truth is the first casualty of war, then environmental concern is the first casualty of economic recession. Surveys of Canadian voters showed the environment to be their first or second concern in 1989-90. At that time, though, the economy was booming, pumping out tens of thousands of new jobs a month. A year-and-a-half later, with the economy locked in the worst recession in 60 years, government finances were imploding, jobs disappearing and foreclosure wolves circling, the environment vanished from the top 10. There will always be a small, hard-core voter base motivated by eco-issues. They’re not worried about losing their jobs in an environmentalist-driven recession. They know that if they get laid off from the alternative music store, they can always go clerk at the Gaia Vegan Market or Wiccans ‘R’ Us. But for most people, the environment is a luxury good — easily expendable when their livelihoods and homes are threatened.

10. London Evening Standard – CAMERON WARNS BROWN HIS OWN PARTY WILL DITCH HIM IF HE DOES NOT SCRAP GREEN TAX RISES – June 04, 2008.
Excerpt: Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown’s leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions. Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called ‘deeply unpopular and unenvironmental’ changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers’ Questions: ‘If you don’t get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.’

11. Washington Post – Vote on Climate Bill is Blocked in Senate – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices.

12. Washington Post – U.S. Senate Democrats May Pull Climate Bill – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: If this week’s Senate debate on a proposed cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases was supposed to be a dress rehearsal for climate legislation, things are not looking too good for opening night. Although parliamentary maneuvers could still extend the debate into next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) faced the prospect of failure in a bid to end debate on amendments to the climate bill this morning. In that event, he was expected to seek withdrawal of the entire measure, to the relief of some Democrats from coal-producing or heavy industrial states. Some Democrats were worried yesterday that the GOP might try to block withdrawal of the legislation to prolong a debate that many Democrats think no longer works to their political benefit.

13. Wall Street Journal – Climate Bill Stalls in Senate – June 06, 2008
Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71% by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices. “It’s a huge tax increase,” argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.”

14. NewsOK.com – Cost ineffective: Warming bill would hit Oklahoma hard – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: This would be done through a cap-and-trade system under which businesses and industries meeting federal emissions caps could trade or sell excess capacity to those exceeding them. That means new bureaucracies, new programs — more than 40 by some estimates — and the complications that routinely go with most new government initiatives. That concerns Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa. “The climate solution should not require an overhaul of our economy and those decisions should not be made by nameless bureaucrats,” Inhofe says. As it is, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis warns of cumulative losses to the national economy of more than $4.5 trillion by 2030 — even as leading global polluter China lets its economy run unencumbered.

15. Associated Press – Economy First: EU Governments Split on Emissions Target – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: EU governments were split Thursday over the best way for the 27-nation bloc to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Germany said a plan to slash car emissions by 2012 was unfair to its automobile industry, which makes vehicles that tend to be faster, bigger, heavier and more polluting than those of other EU nations. Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, said it was harder for Germany than Italy which made light, small cars that already just about meet the 2012 emission limit. “We have to be honest and open with each other here,” Gabriel said. “We have very different interests.”

16. Peanuts! Tough Climate Goals Only Cost $45 Trillion by 2050 – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: A goal to halve planet-warming carbon emissions by 2050, similar to an aim Japan is urging G8 leaders to agree next month, would add $45 trillion to global energy bills, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday. “It’s a lot of money,” IEA analyst Peter Taylor told a meeting on the fringes of a climate conference in Germany, previewing the agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives report to be published in Japan on Friday. “It implies a completely different energy system,” he said. For example, electricity from renewable sources such as hydropower and the wind would reach close to half all power production, compared to 18 percent now, Taylor told Reuters.

# # #

this news roundup from Marc Morano, Communications Director, US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff. www.epw.senate.gov

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

The World’s Most Painful Plant

June 6, 2008 By neil

D.moroides.jpg

Australians might be surprised to hear that many visiting travellers perceive the country as dangerous … a landscape teeming with deadly snakes and spiders and surrounded by crocodiles, sharks and jellyfish, but what of its floral dangers?

Gympie Gympie (Dendrocnide moroides) is arguably the world’s most painful plant. Covered with hypodermic hairs on its leaves and stems, it can inject poison that causes extreme pain.

It grows most virulently in damaged rainforest along Australia’s north-east coast. Its seeds remain dormant in the soil beneath a dark understory, until germinated by exposure to intensified sunlight, such as when a rainforest tree collapses. It is found most frequently as a single-stemmed plant, 1-2 metres high. Its large, long-stalked, alternate leaves are broadly heart-shaped (∼30 x 22 cm) with serrated margins. The central vein stops short of the periphery, terminating with the stalk attachment, on the underside of the leaf. Its mulberry-like, bright pink to purple fruits are borne upon axillary stalks on female plants.

Contact with human skin can cause extreme pain, starting as a rapidly intensifying burning sensation. The pain may persist for days, but upon exposure to cold air, water or when rubbed, the pain can be reinvigorated for up to two months or more, beyond the original sting.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

Evidence for Increasing Negative Deviation of Southern Ocean and Antarctic Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels from Global Average: Steve Short

June 4, 2008 By jennifer

As part of an ongoing study I have computed monthly deviations between CO2 level at each of the seven southern stations lying from 40 deg S to the Pole obtained from the NOAA record of monthly averages for ALL Southern Hemisphere stations and the NOAA (monthly) average global CO2 levels for the period 1982 through 2006.

I then computed the average annual deviations for all southern stations from the global annual mean CO2 levels. Note I used strictly ONLY complete year records for each station and dumped any year if it had missed a single month or more.

The outcomes are in the plot below. Error bars are ± one sigma as usual.

Steve Short_C02  Deviations blog.gif

Please note the 2nd inflection around 1998 when global temperatures were last maximal – slight cooling or plateau since then.

Northern Hemisphere CO2 levels undoubtedly continued to climb monotonically on an annual scale over the period 1982 – 2006 and we can reasonably presume was accompanied by no significant attendant global warming since about 2000.

However, it appears that after a hiatus in the 1990s, Southern Ocean and Antarctic CO2 levels have continued to deviate increasingly, in the negative sense, in relation to the global CO2 average (dominated by data from Northern Hemisphere and Tropical Zone monitoring stations).

In my view, this southern offset from the global average CO2 level should be getting smaller, not larger, worldwide due to increasing global circulation to be in accord with present GCM theory.

Zones of blooming cyanobacteria directly back-scatter solar radiation due to calcite-producing coccolithophores, which are found everywhere but especially in subpolar regions (Coccolithus pelagicus), thereby decreasing ocean heat retention and cool the overall water column (Hansen et al. 1997; Hansen and Nazarenko, 2004).

By shading the deeper waters and trapping energy near the surface where it can escape to the atmosphere, it is suggested this cyanobacterial ‘canopy’ decreases heat input to the deep ocean.

Cyanobacteria also produce the sulfur compound dimethylsulfoniopropionate, which decomposes in sea water into dimethylsulfide, diffuses into the atmosphere, and is oxidized, leading to acidic aerosols that function as efficient cloud condensation nuclei. In areas where cloud condensation nuclei are scarce, this could increase planetary albedo by creating more and brighter clouds of greater longevity.

It is speculated that cyanobacteria in the Great Southern Ocean entered a phase of higher blooming rates in the early part of the millennium, thereby consuming CO2, increasing oceanic albedo and cloud cover (via dimethylsulfide emissions) and likely significantly cooling the southern hemisphere.

This ‘effect’ (if such is what it is) is found directly by deconvolution of the official NOAA CO2 data record, and doesn’t appear to have anything to do (that I can think of) with solar cycles etcetera.

Please note this information is preliminary and currently subject to discussion, checking and related computation by myself and several colleagues during preparation of a paper to be submitted most likely to Geophysical Research Letters. In the mean time, may I request that this new finding be fairly attributed to myself in this blog AND to Short et al. (in preparation) ‘Evidence for Increasing Negative Deviation of Southern Ocean and Antarctic Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels from Global Average’ cited elsewhere.

References:
Hansen, J., Sato, M. & Ruedy, R. (1997) J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831–6864.
Hansen, J. & Nazarenko, L. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 423–428.

Regards
Dr Steve Short
Director
Ecoengineers Pty Ltd
www.ecoengineers.com

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Higher Petrol and Electricity Price for Australia, And No Nuclear: Dennis Jensen

June 4, 2008 By jennifer

“It is interesting that Labor, during the election campaign, had lots of talk about plans for the future, but the reality, as delivered by the budget, shows a lack of vision and a lack of strategic planning or coherent direction. Before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition kept telling us that he had a plan for this and he had a plan for that. In reality, his only plan was to become Prime Minister.

Let us have a look at some of the issues that have a lot of unintended consequences—for instance, the removal of the condensate exemption, which will result in a net gain of revenue of $2.43 billion but will significantly damage the international competitiveness of the resources industry. The government have also decided to reintroduce the CPI increase on the diesel excise levy. Obviously, this will result in increased costs of transport, and this is inflationary. Increased costs to mining also reduce productivity, and hence the tax take. And increased costs to agriculture are inflationary and threaten farmers’ livelihoods.

There is the so-called alcopops tax—increasing the tax on alcopops, theoretically to reduce binge drinking. But
binge drinking has actually reduced over the last five or so years with the target audience of young women, and
projections by Treasury show a four per cent reduction in ready-to-drinks compared with before the increased tax.
HBF’s Western Australian data show that ready-to-drinks comprise only three per cent of what 18- to 21-year-olds
are drinking, compared with 51 per cent for spirits. Those over 30 consume ready-to-drinks at greater percentages
than those in the 18 to 21 group. This shows that Labor are completely illiterate regarding statistics—and perhaps
that is why they have cut the ABS budget. Of importance is reducing the overall alcohol consumption in binge
drinking situations, not just ready-to-drinks, where substitution of other forms of alcohol is already happening. In
summary, looking at a massive tax increase on ready-to-drinks is supposed to decrease use of a product that only
three per cent of the target group use, and that reduction is only by four per cent. This is two-thirds of stuff-all, I would suggest.

Then there is the area of science, a discipline that is critical to Australia’s advancement. Scientific research is vital in the development of solutions to many problems, as well as pure research. So what do the Labor government
do? They cut CSIRO’s budget so significantly that CSIRO will shed 100 jobs and four divisions. What a travesty; what hypocrisy! And that is before we even get to cuts to ANSTO—probably purely based on political antinuclear ideology. The government has also slashed the Commercial Ready program, which, in the past, funded
clinical trials for cancer treatments and the high-risk biotech sector. So much for R&D! On 1 November 2000 and
in February 2007, the current Prime Minister extolled the virtue of research and development, especially in universities, and feigned outrage at the policies of the coalition. This man has now slashed CSIRO funding. Fine
words; black deeds.

Then, worst of all, in the areas of energy and the environment, the government is shown to be clueless hypocrites.

We had Peter Garrett decrying the coalition government’s environment policy when in opposition. On an almost weekly basis he complained about our policy for solar power generation, stating that we had been world leaders in solar technology, particularly photovoltaics, but were no longer so. Now Labor is in government, and it is instructive to compare rhetoric with action. Far from delivering a policy to enhance the photovoltaic industry,
the Rudd Labor government has introduced a policy that is likely to kill the entire industry in Australia. The Rudd government has introduced a budget measure that will dissuade essentially the only people who will be able to afford solar panels on the roof—those earning over $100,000—from doing so by cutting the solar rebate. That is grubby Labor politics of envy winning out over good policy, I would suggest.

Look at Labor rhetoric on carbon dioxide emissions and contrast that with their actions. State Labor governments
in New South Wales and Western Australia have decided to build new coal-fired power stations. What happened to gas, never mind renewables or—God forbid, in the eyes of some Labor and particularly Greens members— nuclear power? This seems to be a pattern: a lot of whingeing about problems when in opposition but nary a solution when in government. Labor’s spin puts youths with hotted-up cars doing burnouts to shame. We have
news, however, of a new baseload gas-fired power station in New South Wales which effectively puts the carbon cost at two cents per kilowatt hour for coal-fired power stations. This will make electricity prices far more expensive and makes nuclear power extremely cost-competitive. Think what this carbon price will do to petrol prices.

The Labor Party, the party that promised in an election campaign to put maximum downward pressure on petrol prices, will be slugging hard-pressed motorists with far higher petrol prices. We put downward pressure on petrol
prices. Indeed, the proportion of tax take from fuel has gone down from 6.6 per cent to 4.8 per cent in the last six
years. That is real downward pressure. Perhaps the media and others have misunderstood the Labor catchphrase.

Perhaps when Labor were saying ‘working families’ they were actually saying ‘walking families’ to prepare Australia for this very crisis. This will no doubt be explained away as a measure to solve another crisis that Labor will no doubt bring forward when they are next under pressure: the obesity epidemic. Not being able to afford petrol will clearly assist in that regard—irony intended.

An opposition that promised a long-term plan for the future has mutated into a government scrambling desperately for ideas, throwing up short-sighted, ill thought out policy that exacerbates the very problems that Labor promised to solve. Where is the long-term coherent policy and strategy? Nowhere to be seen in this budget. There are just a whole lot of punitive measures, slush funds and inevitable spin. It just won’t wash.

Let us have a look at the future and what we can do. In going around my electorate of Tangney, I have heard people express concern that they see no light at the end of the tunnel regarding petrol. Not only do they worry
about increasing fuel prices; they worry that there will not be any fuel at all for their vehicles. What is the government doing? These are issues of sovereign risk and sovereign energy security, which are clearly critical for our long-term future. What the government is doing is nothing more than attempting to wallpaper over gaping cracks
in its policies.

I have already spoken at length of the necessity to consider nuclear energy, so I will not dwell on it. I would just urge the government to fully and critically examine and analyse all potential electricity generation methods. We need a comprehensive national energy strategy. This is something that is clearly not on the cards with this government.
But what about petrol and other oil based products? It may shock you to learn that there is an essentially Third World nation that obtains fully one-third of its fuel synthetically and has done so for 50 years. The country is the
nation of my birth, South Africa, and the process is Sasol. Rugby Union fans would probably have wondered what
‘Sasol’ across the Springboks jumper meant. You are about to find out.

Sasol is an oil-from-coal process that uses the Fischer-Tropsch process, developed prior to World War II. Germany
produced synthetic fuel during the war using this process. It was further developed in South Africa, and Sasol fuels began to be sold 50 years ago. This process was largely ignored in the rest of the world due to the expense
of the process, but from South Africa’s perspective in the apartheid days it was essential from an energy security point of view. A benefit of the fuel is that it is extremely clean. Just as synthetic engine oil has virtually no impurities, the same holds for synthetic petrol. The really good news is that the fuel that was ignored due to costs
is now remarkably cheap. The Sasol process produces oil for between $27 and $55 a barrel. Somehow I do not
think we will have oil prices quite that low again. The United States is showing significant interest in the process,
as are many other nations. Where are we?

The green disciples of anthropogenic global warming will oppose this process, as it is relatively carbon dioxide intensive. But let us take the time to examine some of the pseudoscience on which this whole anthropogenic global warming belief is based. Let us also examine how these disciples act and how they are reported. First, I find some of the commentary coming from some of the anthropogenic global warming zealots extremely perplexing.

We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually
happening?

I have three graphs: one from the third IPCC assessment report and two from the fourth assessment report. All of the projections show an increase from the year 2000, even if the graph for carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. I repeat: all the projections show an increase over the last decade. But what do actual measurements
show? I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. 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.

A classic example of rejecting facts which do not fit the theory is the temperature graph over the last 1,000 years and the use of tree ring and tree density data as a proxy for temperature. There is a well-known problem when comparing tree ring and density data with temperature data over the last 140 years. Between 1860 and 1960,
the data agreed reasonably well. After 1960, there is a divergence. The tree ring and density data indicate that temperatures have decreased, where measurements have actually indicated an increase. If you look at the IPCC
graphs, the tree proxy data ends abruptly at—you guessed it—1960.

Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence
problem: In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.

In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory then you should make the theory fit the facts.

If global temperature is not heating as predicted, maybe this elusive heat is going into the oceans. Not so. Three thousand oceanic robots that dive up to 1,000 metres have been measuring ocean temperatures since 2003 and
show, if anything, a slight decrease and certainly not an increase. So where has the heat gone? IPCC coordinating lead author Kevin Trenberth has stated: … none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

According to Kevin Trenberth, the lost heat is probably going back out to space. He says the earth has a number of
natural thermostats, including clouds, which can trap heat, turn up the temperature or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. So why is none of this reflected in the modelling? It is situating the appreciation again.

This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys etcetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.

The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned
Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal?

It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.

So what we have is a more and more desperate anthropogenic global warming theory supporters club who, when the data indicates that the planet has not been heating for the last 10 years and the oceans have not heated for at east the last five, tell us that global warming is happening even more quickly than the theory predicts. After all, the models must be right, just like the bookies must always be right with predictions on match or racing results.

The problem is that this religion based around the false god of a controllable and naturally benign climate is going to hurt every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of significantly higher fuel and energy prices and onsequent increases in the cost of living, particularly food, so groceries and fuel and so on are going to go up
significantly—estimates say approximately 10c to 30c per litre for petrol alone. This government is clearly quite
happy with that, and that is a tragedy for many Australians.

Dr. Dennis Jensen
Federal Member for Tangney
Western Australia

————————
This speech was made by Dr Jensen in the Australian Federal Parliament on June 3, 2008, on the Appropriation Bill.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 37
  • Go to page 38
  • Go to page 39
  • Go to page 40
  • Go to page 41
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 334
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital