Every politician voting on the ETS has a legal and moral responsibility to be impartial and declare any conflicts of interest insofar as whether voting for the ETS will cause them to benefit financially or otherwise in ANY way.

It has come to light that a large amount of investment, superannuation and other funds have heavily invested in ‘green’ businesses. Senators need to perform due diligence to ensure they do not benefit directly or indirectly from any holdings they or their funds have and be completely transparent to the Parliament and the Australian public.

This transparency would include declaring any shares or investments held directly or indirectly by them that could improve in value as a result of supporting the ETS and that could bring into question the required need for them to be impartial.

Conflicts of interest and corrupted science, BBC ecobias, Climatechange secretary’s girlfriend conflict of interest, Another correction the IPCC needs to make!, Australian climate poll, Monckton vs Lambert, Whats happened to global warming? Labor hypocrisy, 20th century warming – NOT,

But in another way quite realistic and scary!

see more here, here, here, here, here and  here

But then its not that far off the mark;

House audits coming!, IPCC propaganda – not science, IPCC lies,

The destruction of NASA

This morning I read an article over at The Indapendant Independent that made all sorts of claims about climate skeptics with a picture of Steve McIntyre adjoining (climate audit response here, more comment by Bishop Hill here) – even though Steve McIntyre wasn’t mentioned in the article. The article made all sorts of claims but gave no actual proof. So I commented on the article as follows;

“SO wheres the proof that climate skeptics are linked to big oil? The article above makes assertions that are inconclusive – theres only claims – no links. I run a skeptics blog and to date I havnt received a cent. I do it because I got sick of hear global warming lies. Sort of shoots your theory to bits doesnt it.”

Needless to say my post got deleted My mistake it is still there, but I did receive an email response from juliaandbsmith and then found their post/response still there. as follows;

Subject: Re: Big oil think tanks
Well if you actually read my piece, there is no reference to my views on Climate Change, just a call for all to support democracy, examine actual reality, and set our best minds to work on our common problems. Nothing a reasonable person could possibly object to!

You don’t promote your cause at all well by posting knee-jerk, badly spelt, aggressive posts, even worse, I can’t believe that haven’t even read the previous post, just assumed a position that isn’t even there!!

I’m beginning to make my mind up, in technical matters I’m going to respect the views of people who actually seem to have an education. Perhaps a “blogs” and “posts” filter could be invented to filter out anything with poor spelling, certainly the quality of exchange would be improved, if not the content!

Since when has it been wrong to ask for proof when claims are made. That I would think was a reasonable request. However what I objected to and others found appalling was guilt by insinuation, and as Bishop Hill says – gutter journalism. All these journalists do by their article and response is expose their own ineptitude, their own bias and their own inability to present a reasonable argument. I have emailed them a link to this post – they are free to respond – I’m not interested in censoring them – but what I, like others would like to see is the facts that support their argument – how are we climate skeptics paid by big oil?

Over at Bishop Hill they are discussing whether an error has been found in the land temperature index CRUTEM3. This is the program that is meant to adjust the raw (real) data to make it more real.

These errors would be on top of errors already having been found in the appalling quality of temperature recording stations (see surfacestations), the drastically reducing quantity of temperature recording stations, the biased warming adjustment of station data, the faulty exclusion of the urban heat island bias and more.

Real program accuracy, Todays IPCC blooper, Big oil – not what they claimed,

What most people dont realise is that the temperature record released to the media is not the raw recorded data but the adjusted data. And it is on the adjusted data that all the gloom and doom, chicken little, sky is falling, end of the world, and obscene money making prophesies are based upon!

If however you go to the raw data, in rural areas where there has been no increased in urbanisation what do you typically find in the temperature record? A slight cooling trend that has deepened this century. This would be consistent with sun inactivity and natural historical climatic trends.

WWF polar bear lies, WWF climate lies, WWF forest lies, WWF grant money, Britain to freeze again in record cold

Why are we NOT surprised. BBC climate alarmism bias is simply because they had invested very heavily in climate alarmist industries! Talk about conflicts of interest! More here and here

Wave power “research” picked from commercial website.

Now a sheepish IPCC has had to admit there was no scientific basis for claims that global warming was linked to a supposed rise in natural disasters like hurricanes and floods.

Omitted; the bright side of global warming

Dont dismiss Climategate,   Don’t trust the weatherman’s forecasts,   Scientists behaving badly, Ban free speech,    Western civilisation is NOT in decline,

CLIMATE MAKES MONEY

Looks like the churches are in on the scam also. So the only thing propping up global warming is not the ’science’ but the vested interests who have put all our life savings into it!