Rebellion

Dennis Jensen Just Restored my slight faith in the Liberal Party

Read this before it becomes illegal to hold such thoughts.

Dr DENNIS JENSEN, Member of Parliament for Seat of Tangney:

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 when
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 et cetera 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 least 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 consequent 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.

It does disturb me that such a rational argument is almost never heard outside in the mainstream press. Especially considering the fact that Jensen, with a Doctorate in Engineering, has a far better grasp of the science behind so-called anthropogenic global warming, but that this story wasn’t front page news in every newspaper in the country. Much the same way that every single idiotic announcement that the Goracle may pronounce is.

Stolen from Bolta.

June 4th, 2008 Posted by rebellion | Uncategorized | no comments