EarthGauge:- Weyburn carbon capture and storage facility springs a leak

I left the following comments at

I received a somewhat contemptuous reply and then got spammed from then on.

Sigh. Another AGE believer who cannot stand facing facts that threaten his views. It seems to be treated as if I told a Christian that Jesus was dead or a Muslim that Mahommed was a fake.

rogerthesurf Says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:47 am | Reply

Well look on the bright side, it could mean that we could have pre aerated water on tap.

Seriously though:-

I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

AGW is baloney anyway!




Mark Says:
January 31, 2011 at 11:24 pm | Reply

“as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain.”

Thanks Roger. Folks, it’s official. The hundreds of expert climate scientists around the world who support the IPCC conclusions about human-caused climate change are all wrong. And Roger who runs a blog from New Zealand is right. Climate change must surely be a hoax.

Once again…“Either you believe in science — i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on — or you don’t. If you don’t, I can’t “prove” anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports — which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin’ govt in the world — are as much proof as a human being could possibly want.

“If you don’t buy into the IPCC, we have nothing to talk about. You might as well not buy into what the American Medical Association or the National Academy of Sciences says. Why take medicine? Why floss? Why get on an airplane? The IPCC report is a summary of the scientific evidence. Simple as that….”

The following comments have not been moderated

rogerthesurf Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 1, 2011 at 2:08 am

Well first of all the IPCC is not a scientific organisation, it is a political organisation.

There might be hundreds of scientists whose work the IPCC uses but there are many thousands, including some of the ones the IPCC cites who oppose the IPCC conclusions, methods and AGW theory in general.

Here is a list of a few out of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers who contradict every piece of evidence the IPCC has. Why didnt the IPCC use these?

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney

An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
– Roy Clark

A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
– William Kininmonth

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle

An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
– Sherwood B. Idso

Vincent Gray, an IPCC contributor has some words to say about the IPCC and its methods

The American Physical Society is becoing un-scientific.

Scientist who oppose or think that AGW is unproven etc number in the 10′s of thousands. See these links.

Lastly I invite you to read my blog where I review some incontrovertial evidence that disproves the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

I seem to remember that more than a minority of german people opposed the Third Reich and most young people believed in the almost superhuman powers of Hitler until the end. That didn’t make their beliefs true or the regime any less rotten and manipulative did it?



rogerthesurf Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 3, 2011 at 1:22 am | Reply

I am disappointed that you have not seen fit to publish my last comment.
Perhaps you are afraid to publish facts which contradict your current beliefs?
I actually have a website at which I publish many of my disallowed comments where my readers enjoy the discomfort of agw supporters when they are asked searching questions and presented with facts.
Looking forward to seeing my comment published.




Oops sorry about the typo in the addrees there:)


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: