NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS)


NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS)

Political Party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission

Location: Australia
Members: 44
Latest Activity: Apr 3

Discussion Forum

"Where is the correlation where is causality?" Why has this not received more publicity ?

2 key questions:" Where is the correlation where is causality?"See this lecture by Prof Bob Carter of James Cook University in Qld…Continue

Started by Mark Berry Apr 3.

What is the greenhouse effect ??? 1 Reply

Hi All,I hope the attached pdf is simply understandable to all. My apologies if it comes as rather a large shock to find out how simple and obvious a scam the greenhouse effect actually is.In Part 3…Continue

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Geoff Brown Aug 15, 2012.

Derek Xmas 2011 pdf In equals Out, or else, BOOOM. 32 Replies

Hi All,Long time, no see. For that my apologies, but please "enjoy" and share the attached,Word document version…Continue

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Derek Alker Jul 22, 2012.

PROVEN - Carbon tax has NO BASIS. C13 "fingerprint" IS natural, NOT man made. 12 Replies

Hello All,My apologies if this has already been raised and I missed it. BUT, it is the proof that the IPCC man's "fingerprint" of CO2 emissions effecting global CO2 levels is actually TOTALLY NATURAL…Continue

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Geoff Brown Apr 24, 2012.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS) to add comments!

Comment by Rae Billett on December 27, 2011 at 3:03pm

Sorry Geoff not Jeff...I do it all the time!

Comment by Rae Billett on December 27, 2011 at 2:58pm

Hi Jeff and Al - minus the Bro bit - well done...

I recall the stuff up with the Atlas, goes to show how much BS is fed to the population of the world if allowed.

Yes Al, that was the guy, Purves. He didn't seem too far over the top as Flannery always is; not a nutter in other words. 

If the ice melt in Greenland is occurring as a natural event and not as a result of population and CO2 emissions, it would be nice if Mr. Purves and people of his ilk came around to that way of thinking and said so perhaps? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being an environmentally aware farmer, most of them are as far as I am aware.


I have no problem with 'scientists' claiming some areas are getting warmer or colder provided it is based upon reasonable natural science (not computerised science) over reasonable peiods of time - not 150 years. Shame about those models not showing what they wanted....giggle and LOL how surprising!

I also have a huge problem with some people claiming 'weather events' can be changed. Nature will be nature and the climate of the planet is not about to be regulated no matter what they think we are gullible enough to believe.

Comment by Rae Billett on December 27, 2011 at 8:34am

Geoff, what is actually happening with the Greenland ice melt? They are still screaming about global warming in that area. I saw Tim Flannery and some environmentalist with a lot of money the other night stating he was going back to Greenland to see again for himself. Good idea but I cannot find what they are basing their assertions upon. I also don't know how old that vid actually was - it was SBS I think.
Greenland is called Greenland for a very good reason, it is not Iceland. And, as far as I know, there have been summers where there was more ice melt that others, over the eons - but they are not looking at eons, they are looking at at something like the last 150 years I believe.. Since, they tell us, records have been kept (computer records?). A blink in time!

Comment by Rae Billett on December 27, 2011 at 8:25am

It would be nice if the powers did reopen the debate with a fair representation of non-believers (not sceptics now) but it is now rampantly political. Somewhat hard to have politicians go back on the promises they made behind closed doors. They want big business to pay for carbon credits and the likes of BHP want to pay because they do pollute the environment. It is a conundrum, the people themselves are very little players. Of course all that dealing in carbon has no effect whatsoever on the weather.

Comment by Michael Petterson on December 24, 2011 at 11:40am

German Climate And Energy Experts To Publish Controversial New Book – Reject Alarmism, Call For Reopening The Debate

E-mail Print PDF

A new book is coming out. Personally I believe it’s going to cause a political storm in Germany, if not Europe. It’s going to upset a large number of climate Scrooges and the profiteers of doom.

The book Die kalte Sonne, Warum die Klimakatastophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun, Why The Climate Catastrophe Is Not Taking Place) seriously challenges global warming alarmism. The book is written by Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Deliveries start at February 22, 2012. But I’m told the date may actually be February 8!

The publisher is influential publishing house Hoffmann & Campe in Hamburg.

What compelled the authors to write the book?

In short, being trained scientists, they noticed stark contradictions between model projections and real-life observations. Nothing matched up, something was wrong with the science, the models, and the IPCC. They explain it in detail in the book and in layman’s terms. The German Amazon description writes:

The IPCC is sure: The climate warming is because of man. However, are the infamous climate gases really the primary driver of our climate? And why hasn’t it been getting warmer? Vahrenholt and Lüning have taken a close look at the various climate models during their research. They reach the conclusion that a part of the Earth’s warming of the last 150 years is because of a natural cycle that is predominantly controlled by the sun. The next decades are more likely to lead us to a slight cooling instead of a warming. This provides the time to rationally develop and expand renewable energy sources, and to carry out the energy transformation in an economically, sensible and sustainable way.”

The book is up-to-date, and its content is well-researched – over 800 footnotes. Many of the cited sources are the most recent peer-reviewed scientific papers and findings. Also many of the well-known climate blogs and sites are cited as well. Some blogs are prominently featured, like Climate AuditWUWT, and Real Climate. I had the privilege of reading the manuscript, so I’m familiar with the book’s content. I really wish I could spill more about it. The book concludes, paraphrasing:

The IPCC is in error, the models are bogus, and the climate catastrophe is not coming. The climate debate has to be started anew.”
Comment by anthony cox on December 24, 2011 at 11:14am

Hi guys, I submitted this to the local paper but it doesn't look like getting up so see what you think.

Email Science

The second batch of emails about man-made global warming [AGW] was released just before the recent conference on AGW held in Durban.

The first batch of emails was released in 2009 just before the AGW conference in Copenhagen. Those emails showed the AGW scientists, who form an integrated network around the world based on the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit [CRU], to be hostile towards anyone who was sceptical of AGW. The emails also showed a lack of transparency and raised some doubts about the science used to prove AGW.

Despite several enquiries which cleared the scientists of any scientific malpractice doubts continued given the limited scope of those enquiries.

The second batch, however, leave no doubt about the doubtful aspects of AGW science because in this latest batch of emails the doubt is expressed by the AGW scientists.

In email after email the scientists express profound doubts about the competency of the computer models, whether different aspects of AGW are actually occurring and the fact that real measurements of temperature, radiation and water levels do not agree with the model predictions.

In short the AGW scientists privately express grave doubts about the science while publically either declaring the science is settled or not contradicting government policies which are based on the science being settled.

Despite claims to the contrary it appears that the removal of the emails was an inside job. The reason for this is that a physical presence or physical access to the internal computers was required.

If that is the case then it would also be the case that the person[s] responsible would have available to them the defence offered by Whistle-blower legislation which protects people for releasing information which is of public interest.

Given that the CRU scientists are paid from the public purse and that AGW is a dominant issue in the World community it would seem the public interest test is satisfied.

In fact the only potential criminal charge connected with the emails is a finding against CRU for contravening Freedom of Information requirements. That is, they unreasonably refused to provide the sort of information which was contained in some of the emails.

Despite this the email saga has taken a sinister turn. Recently one of the bloggers who first published the emails after being given them by the whistle-blower has been raided by English police. The warrant was issued under section 15 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [1984] which allows for searches of premises pursuant to an indictable offence.

The only problem with this is that if the emails are deemed to be in the public interest whistle-blower legislation would negate any “indictable offence”.

The blogger, who runs his site under the sobriquet “Tallbloke”, may also be covered by legislation and case law dealing with ‘journalism’ and ‘journalistic material’. In Castells v Spain (1992) the European Court of Human Rights overturned the conviction of a non-journalist lawyer who wrote an article criticising Spain. In England the activity of journalism is given special protection in various statutes while in California bloggers are regarded as journalists.

If that is the case why was ‘Tallbloke’ raided and his computers confiscated?

It is of interest that the US Department of Justice was involved in the raid. It is also notable that only 11,000 emails have been released. Approximately 20,000 emails remain encrypted. The 11,000 released emails only deal with the scientists with only one reference to an outside, non-scientist, Goldman Sachs Bank.

There is blogger speculation that the remaining 20,000 emails may involve communications between the scientists and businesses and politicians.

With all the support being given to the Wiki-Leaks founder, Julian Assange, it seems strange that little or no support and coverage is being given to the email whistle-blower.

Comment by Laurel Ender on December 22, 2011 at 9:40pm

heres the  bits of an email I sent to a few mates yesterday, think you'll find it useful.

really beggars bel;ief does'nt it?
totally ignore real data from a satellite because?
your Models....don't agree.
this is NOT science its pure farce!
he really should be arrested and tried over blatant lies and corruption of data.

The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest. Since the observations were not of the expected range, rather than figure out why the results might be wrong, they just twisted the dials to “reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models.”

And curiously, the “imbalance suggested by climate models”, of some 0.85 W/m2, was actually from Hansen’s previous paper. That earlier paper of his, by coincidence called “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications“, gave that 0.85 W/m2 figure as a result from Hansen’s own GISS climate model … but all this incestuous back-slapping is probably just another coincidence.

Comment by peter laux on December 14, 2011 at 9:53pm

Look at the cartoon on this one - I think this is what is needed - merciless parody and mockery. I was also thinking maybe we should institute awards for climate fraud called the "Charles Dawsons" or "Piltdowns" - Dawson was the fraudster who manufactured a 'missing link" - the Piltdown man.


Comment by peter laux on December 14, 2011 at 9:39pm

Its just fraud and abuse of power and they think themselves entitled to do it. They would squeal that chevron are the criminals.

Here is another from a geologist called Leighton Steward. He states the obvious but put together is compelling. 

Comment by anthony cox on December 14, 2011 at 5:00pm

Yes, I agree with Geoff; great catch Peter.


Members (44)


Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect


Discussion Forum

What is the greenhouse effect ??? 1 Reply

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Geoff Brown Aug 15, 2012.

Derek Xmas 2011 pdf In equals Out, or else, BOOOM. 32 Replies

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Derek Alker Jul 22, 2012.

PROVEN - Carbon tax has NO BASIS. C13 "fingerprint" IS natural, NOT man made. 12 Replies

Started by Derek Alker. Last reply by Geoff Brown Apr 24, 2012.

© 2014   Created by Rob Moore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service