The Natural History Museum vs. American Museum of Natural History

The Natural History Museum is accusing the American Museum of Natural History “of being ‘anti-science’ and promoting ‘climate science misinformation’, and in particular, vilifying a scientifically-engaged trustee of the museum, Rebekah Mercer.”

For background on this dispute, see: Background Detail [PDF, 190 KB]

For the petition letter with signatories supporting American Museum of Natural History see: Petition [PDF, 445 KB]

Real Debate Rocks the Geological Society of London

The Geological Society of London helped to drive UK climate policy. However many members of the GSL have questioned their position papers, and a group of disgruntled geo’s resigned after the position papers were published.

There is now a movement to have the GSL position papers amended, and comments and submissions are invited. Read all about it below:

Here is the questionable policy statement:

And here are some comments to date:

Please join this important debate.

Part Time Power

Solar power only works while the sun shines – it is part-time power.

Wind power only works when suitable winds blows – also part-time power.

Batteries only work when charged – part-time power again.

Hydro fails in droughts – more part-time power.

And using full-time power like gas to fill the inevitable supply gaps from part-time power forces backup gas to operate like part-time power.

Moreover, on sunny windy days, wind and solar generators spew out electricity at little extra cost. These erratic surges of part-time power drive short-term electricity prices so low that even low-cost full-time producers like coal cannot operate profitably at those times. They are throttled back and forced to operate as yet another part-time power plant.

24/7 electricity users such as hospitals, trains, factories, refineries, fuel and water pumps, cash registers, infrastructure and mines cannot operate on part-time electricity.

Moreover, every part-time power producer (using sun, wind, batteries, hydro, gas or coal) consumes money full-time for operations, standby, maintenance and replacement. Each also has to fund its own specialised generators, transmission lines, access roads and workforce. Electricity becomes both unreliable and expensive, and consumers suffer.

Using taxes, subsidies, dictates and mandates to replace a full-time power producer like coal with up to five part-time power producers only makes sense in the part-time minds that inhabit Greentopia.

Canberra cannot improve any of this with more laws and regulations – they must REPEAL all the legislation, regulations, subsidies and taxes that created the mess in the first place. State governments too should repeal their silly energy laws, and stop shutting and destroying power stations. More laws and regulations can only make things worse.

To comment on this article visit:

Viv Forbes
26 Nov 2017

Party Time for Climateers

The climate warriors have held yet another Global Warming Jamboree in Bonn. As expected we were treated to an orchestrated flood of frightening forecasts to support their alarmist agenda.

Naturally most of them did not use carbon energy to get there.


Image credits to

For 23 years they have maintained these shindigs with no effect on the climate but causing great harm to many ordinary people – soaring costs for unreliable subsidised green electricity, loss of manufacturing and mining jobs, and increased food costs caused by high power prices and using food for ethanol/biodiesel.

Climate alarm is just a cover story. The glittering goal they seek is world government directed by unelected officials and funded by a global carbon tax.

What has kept these unproductive conferences alive for so long?

The money is great, the parties are fun, and the prize is power.

To comment on this article visit:

Further Reading:
An acute case of Apocalypse Fatigue Syndrome by Keith DeLacy:

An Avalanche of Global Warming Alarmism:

Here is the First Alarming Salvo:

Climate Policy Is: Redistributing The World’s Wealth:

What we need to do – Drain the Canberra Swamps like they are doing in Washington:

Viv Forbes
6 Nov 2017

“Zero Emissions” will Test the Convictions of Canberrans

Canberra, with its “zero emissions” target, yearns to be Australia’s greenest address.

Good. Let’s use them as a full-blown test of “zero emissions” before we all jump over that cliff.

Canberra passes thousands of laws for us. If their zero emissions dream is fair dinkum, they need to pass just three laws for themselves.

First, ban all petrol, diesel and gas-powered trucks, cars, boats, generators and aeroplanes from Canberra. That should remove emissions from their atmosphere, food from their supermarkets, and leave their roads free for pedestrians and bicycles. Idle airport runways would be ideal sites for solar panels and wind turbines.

Second, prohibit the importation of electricity generated by coal or gas – they can demonstrate how to survive on wind, solar, hydro, batteries and fire-wood. They should work at home using bees-wax candles on cloudy windless days.

Third, introduce a CCT (Canberra-carbon-tax) whereby all carbon dioxide emitted elsewhere in the production and transport of imported cement, steel, aluminium, bitumen, timber, vehicles, bicycles, solar panels, wind turbines, fire wood and food is charged to ACT end users.

If people flock into emissions-free Canberra we know that this is the way for Australia. But if there is a mass exodus, it will signal that the policy is a failure.

Let’s test the convictions of Canberrans.

If you would like to comment, or read comments, on this article go here:

Further Reading:
Canberra’s Zero Emissions Target:

The Ideal Car for Canberra:

Queensland will have to close perfectly good power stations to meet a 50% target:
Viv Forbes
1 Nov 2017

Back to Bolted-Down Industries

Once upon a time Australia was attractive to processing, refining and manufacturing industries using our abundant mineral and food resources, our reliable low-cost coal-fired electricity and a workforce trained in technical skills.

No longer.

Australia used to have 11 oil refineries, spread around the country. There are just 4 left, all over fifty years old, and all in danger of closing down. Green barriers to oil exploration have forced most of them to rely on costly imported crude oil.

We buy our jet fuel from North Asia and have just 19 days supply of aviation fuel in the country. Australia’s diesel supplies sometimes fall to just 13 days of consumption.

Now, for the first time in at least 60 years Australia no longer produces motor vehicles.

China and India have about 430 coal power plants under construction but Australia has not built a single coal-fired power station for seven years – some politicians even rejoice when they manage to close and demolish one.

Brisbane’s new trains are being made in India, Victa mowers are made in China and most coastal shipping died decades ago. Steel works and refineries producing aluminium, copper and zinc are under stress. All these industries are being pushed overseas by costly unreliable electricity and other government barriers and burdens.

Red-green policies being pushed by all major parties are making Australia more dependent on bolted-down industries such as mining and farming that can’t be sent overseas because their basic resources are here. And green opposition to nuclear power increases Aussie reliance on coal.

A century ago Australians relied on wool, wheat, gold, silver, copper, lead-zinc, butter, beef and timber – all products of bolted-down industries.

Red-green policies are pushing us back to those days. Politicians need to remember Newton’s Law of Bureaucracy – whenever the government tries to use the force of law to achieve economic goals the long term results will be equal and opposite to those intended.

So in the long run, red-green energy and environmental policies will make us more dependent on the bolted-down industries they now attack – mining, farming, forestry and fishing.

If you would like to comment on this article, or see other comments go to:

Further Reading:

Construction of new coal-fired power plants is increasing in at least 35 countries:

Asia is returning to Coal:

Greens Disappointed by Economic Growth:

Australia’s Aging oil refineries are closing:

Viv Forbes

16 Nov 2017


Questions for Jacinda [Ardern, leader of New Zealand’s Labour Party], the Greens and any other political zealots talking about reduction of “carbon” emissions, by which I guess they mean the trace gas carbon dioxide (CO2) that currently, at 400 ppm represents 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere from all sources, natural and human-induced.

How do they propose to deal with (a) human emissions of CO2 when each of us exhale, estimated at around an average of 1 kg per day; (b), emissions from volcanoes both above and below the oceans: (c), emissions from sedimentary basins; the combination of which of which greatly exceed CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels in our cars and elsewhere, and from flatulent animals?

And what allowance will they make for the extent to which CO2 as nature’s fertiliser has greened the Earth by an observed 14% since 1979 when satellites gave us the ability to see and measure such changes. For New Zealand alone, an increase of 300 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere is estimated to increase our pasture production by some 30 per cent, and raise our pastoral sector earnings from their current $28 billion by $8 billion, without taking into account similar productivity gains in horticulture and viticulture.

While they’re at at, will one of them quote just one scientific paper, prepared in the recognised scientific method that proves that emissions of CO2 can or do cause variations in the global climate beyond the range of historically recorded observations. No one, anywhere in the world has yet done so.


Terry Dunleavy MBE
Hauraki, North Shore
New Zealand

Worthless Argument: 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Believe Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming

By Jim Rust.

Many climate alarmists claim 97 percent or more climate scientists state carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. I tell them it is not worth discussing this issue. Anyone can create useless statistics to support their arguments. Simply interview people who agree with you.

If you go back to the 1600s, I could say 100 percent of scientists said the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei dissented from this theory and was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church. In order to save his life, on June 22, 1633, Galileo Galilei recanted his published theory that stated the sun was the center of the world and the earth was not. Galileo lived in house arrest the rest of his life.

This shows the argument of force using claims of majority thinking are worthless and should not be used in debates about global warming (climate change). Similarly, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein quotes from

James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech) and policy advisor The Heartland Institute

Heartland Book: CLEXIT for a Brighter Future


Last Thursday, President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, which the Obama administration initially agreed to in 2015. Environmental activists are lambasting his decision, but should they?

In his new book, Clexit for a Brighter Future: The Case for Withdrawing from the United Nations’ Climate Treaties, energy expert Donn Dears explains why the answer is a resounding “No!”

The purpose of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to “achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Dears describes the impossibility of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow or stop climate change.

The international environmental left is living in a fantasy world, and the United States should leave them there by withdrawing from the UNFCCC, a 1992 treaty with a clear “clexit” clause. The treaty was based on the theory that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Since that theory falls apart under scrutiny, Dears concludes, “The UNFCCC treaty is, essentially, a fraud.”

Clexit, a follow-up to Dears’ Nothing to Fear, succinctly and systematically explains, with ample facts and sound logic, why participating in a failed treaty is immoral and economically disastrous.


Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

From Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr.

Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris

Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.

Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.

Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.

Exit Paris: Business

Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.

We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.

Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.

Continue reading “Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris”