A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



Australian Speakers Agency


The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



The pendulum is swinging back now: Climate Rap

This is a great turning point. I know this has been circulating for weeks, but if you haven’t seen this climate rap, do check it out. Good Friday night stuff.

The warmers have been pretending for so long that they are the little guys fighting Big Oil, Big Industry, and Bad Government. The ruse worked so well, that the bubble is ripe for busting. They can’t “fight” the establishment — they are the Establishment.  They have a $144 billion carbon trading scheme, a $243 billion  renewables investment annually, not to mention a UN agency, and whole Western Government Departments spinning their dogma.  What self respecting youth wants to be a useful idiot fighting for their profits?



Greens reveal their aims: Environment? Who cares?

Hypocrisy soup for an entree anyone?

The Greens say they want to protect the environment, that CO2 is evil, and that we must be considerate of foreigners. But their actions speak louder than their tie-dyed t-shirts.

Example 1: They get a pot of $10 billion to hand out to their friends, their fans and their pet projects — and they’ve chosen to use it on “carbon reduction programs” that we already know won’t do much to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If they truly wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, they wouldn’t have ruled out nuclear at the start line and they wouldn’t have ruled out carbon capture and storage (CCS). (We know that CO2 emissions don’t matter; who knew the Greens thought that too?)

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown insisted that CCS not be funded by the new entity, arguing that the money represented industry welfare for foreign-owned mining giants and “clean coal” was an illusion.

But the treasury says this will cost a fortune.

FAILURE to develop carbon capture and storage technology will release 25 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by 2050 and increase the hit on the economy caused by Julia Gillard’s carbon tax, [...]

Election Now! National Rally Canberra + Tamworth event

My intray is full of motivated people with ideas on how to stop this train-wreck. Some are proposing leaflet drops in city malls, letter drops in suburbs, large banners and or sandwich boards beside city streets, debates, conference seminars, and the list goes on. Everyone wants to do something.

This notice just came in for a large rally in Canberra. The rally that was in Tamworth has been moved to Canberra. In it’s place in Tamworth is a new event.

PLUS FREE PUBLIC FORUM – Climate Change Debate! Tamworth, July 21

Tamworth: Thursday 21st July 2011 at 6pm at West Diggers Grand Ball Room, Kable Avenue.

Professor Bob Carter is the Guest Speaker, you can ask questions as receive real answers rather than that of the politicians who seem to be ignoring what is a vitally important part of this debate! You can also support their petition. RSVP to



Tuesday 16th August 2011 Parliament House CANBERRA



Lessons in wasting money: Use more wind and solar and… emit just as much CO2

UPDATE: The Inhaber Graph curve is discussed in 2015. Later work shows this curve may be too pessimistic, though the shape of it is largely correct, the numbers are not quite this dismal.

One windfarm: bad; ten windfarms: useless.

If we replace 5% of the power grid with windpower we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 4% or so. (If only there was some point to doing that.)

But here’s the non-linearity trap for the fans of green energy. If we replace 20% of the power grid with wind power, we don’t get a 16% reduction in CO2 emissions: we get about 2% reduction (give or take a lot). Indeed if we use enough windpower we might even increase CO2 emissions. Yes Coal + Wind = more CO2. Oh the irony. Quick, can someone email Julia Gillard?

A review of wind power’s success in reducing emissions of CO2 shows the folly of pretending that successful small wind and solar power units can be upscaled to replace a large part of our electricity grid.   The major difference between a coal-burning future and a “clean technology” one turns out to have nothing to do with CO2 — instead, in a [...]

Barking mad — a nation howling at fireflies

You don’t need to study any numbers to know it doesn’t add up. The statistical chicanery in a patchwork tax, with a complex compo plan, and offsets, subsidies, and a$10 billion renewable energy* Christmas wish list is as complex as a climate model.  But this time no one is saying “it’s settled”, and is seriously expecting to get their extra 20 cents a week.

Lost among the bedazzling array of numbers are one pair of figures that put the central dumbness of this plan on display.

Australians will pay about $10 billion* a year in carbon fees, overachieving their European competitors who only paid $2.6 billion over, wait for it, six whole years. On a per capita basis the numbers are stark. While Europeans chip in 96 cents a year, Australian’s will be told to pay $500.

The bottom line — figure this — is that we as a nation have “decided” to voluntarily^ pay somewhere from 2 – 5 times as much for our energy, and there are no cheap “technologies” on the horizon unless someone somewhere discovers them (and they’ve been looking for decades). Julia Gillard tried to compare this to other major economic moves like floating the [...]

The slow death of a great democracy: carbon sunday

Everyone wants a free lunch, and some people even believe it exists. Julia Gillard is playing to that crowd, offering the impossible. Somehow, we will cool world temperatures while using some of the most expensive forms of energy we can find, and, wait for it, most Australians will become better off too. It’s money for nothing.

Why we didn’t do this years ago?

Quotes from wise men tell us that there is nothing new under the sun, and those who forget history are condemned…



“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Possibly, Alexander Tytler (circa late 1700′s)



“Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage [...]

Gillard’s tax on “carbon pollution”: the facts

It’s 22 times as expensive to to something rather than nothing.

Gillard’s tax on “carbon pollution”: the facts

The PDF version for printing

If the Australian Government’s proposal to oblige 500 big “polluters” to engage in what the City of London calls “trading hot air” were to achieve its stated aim of cutting 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions by 2020, and assuming HM Treasury’s 3.5% pure-rate-of-time-preference commercial discount rate for inter-temporal investment appraisals –

By 2020, CO2 in the air would be 411.987 parts per million by volume, compared with 412 ppmv if no action were taken. Global warming forestalled by 2020 would be 0.00007 C°: i.e. 1/14,000 C°. 0.00007 C° is 1/700 of the threshold below which modern instruments and methods cannot detect a global temperature change at all. At this rate, total cost of the carbon tax/trade policy will be not less than $127 billion between now and 2020, not counting gasoline and power price hikes. If all the world’s measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions were as cost-ineffective as the Australian Government’s proposed policy, forestalling just 1 C° of global warming would cost the world $1.7 quadrillion. Forestalling all of the [...]

Monckton: Is carbon dioxide mitigation cost-effective?

Lord Christopher Monckton compares the cost of action with the cost of inaction and finds that even assuming that the IPCC estimates are correct, that would be far more expensive to reduce CO2 than to pay to adapt to the potential damage. He compares 8 case studies of carbon trading schemes, as well as wind-farms, and even a bicycle-hire program, and finds that costs vary from $90 tr -$101,000 tr per degree forestalled.  By Garnaut’s own discount rates, the global abatement cost would be 2.3-4.5 times the inaction cost. — Jo Nova


The Everything Tax — a tin pot raffle with no prize

Another great contribution from Speedy

If the ABC was relevant (Part 37)

(The Collector)

[Scene:  A street corner.  JOHN is carrying a clipboard.  He approaches BRYAN.]

John:    Hi – I’m Bob Brown from the Greens.  What’s your name?

Bryan: I’m Bryan Dawe from around the corner.  What’s up?

John:    The Greens are holding a raffle to raise funds and save the world.  Would you like to buy a ticket?

Bryan: What’s the prize?

John:    Prize?

Bryan: What do you win?

John: The lucky winner will receive… [consults clipboard] a lifetime supply of free air.

Bryan: Sorry, I’ve already got one.  [Keeps walking]

John:    Come back!  You haven’t got a ticket!

Bryan: You haven’t got a prize…

John:    But everyone wins a prize in this raffle – we’re going to save the world!

Bryan: What from?

John:    Everything!

Bryan: What does Everything do?

John:    Everything does Everything, Bryan!  Droughts, floods, heatwaves, blizzards, hurricanes, volcanoes, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, species extinctions, plagues, pestilence and starvation.  And that’s only for starters…


Cartoon world of Global Warming — watch the message unfold

Share this with friends:

What a great video. Enjoy. Skill and talent meet a roomful of science.

Thanks to encounterbooks

I like it!

Hat tip to Christian K in Germany.


PS: I’m touring at the moment with Monckton, sorry for the gaps between posts. It’s much fun all round, especially as journalists try to trip him up and come unstuck, as did the ABC this morning, when Adam Spencer was so  angry that Christopher had excellent answers to all the questions that he hung up mid-interview. Ouch for him. Monckton was nonplussed about this interview, so much so, he couldn’t remember who the interviewer was he told us the story this morning.

Why don’t the interviewers do their homework and read the answers the Monckton has given to Abrahamson and others before they try to ”enjoy” scoring points? These are the holes you might step in if you don’t read both sides of the story. When will the believers wake up and realize they’ve been living in a groupthink bubble?

As I’ve said — Monckton puts on a clown [...]

Monckton: The Climate of Freedom — Hancock Lecture — Background Notes

Background notes to the Lang Hancock Memorial Lecture by Christopher Monckton (70 pages)


Monckton Evans Nova — speaking Monday night in Perth

See the Monckton Tour page for details. 5.45pm  Wilsmore Lecture Theatre. UWA Chemistry Dept.  $25.

Ph 043 542 3636 to Book. (I hear tickets are almost all gone).

Then we’re all travelling to Newcastle and Sydney this week. Book now!

Survey shows skeptics are smarter

I kid you not. Chris Mooney at Desmog has got the data that shows skeptics were more literate and numerate than believers, and he wants to share it.

Last week, an intriguing study emerged from Dan Kahan and his colleagues at Yale and elsewhere–finding that knowing more about science, and being better at mathematical reasoning, was related to more climate science skepticism and denial–rather than less.

When faced with the news that smarter more mathematical people were skeptical of man-made global warming, it’s a sure bet that as a Desmogger, he would fail to reach the obvious conclusion.  Are believers gullible fools who can’t see the flaws in the reasoning? No. Skeptics are more literate and numerate about everything else, except for climate science, when they become dangerously overconfident and seek only to use their intellect to punch holes in the theory. Its not like these bright types have anything else to do is it? Of course.

This is bad, bad news for anyone who thinks that better math and science education will help us solve our problems on climate change. But it’s also something else. To me, it provides a kind of uber-explanation for climate skeptic and denier behavior [...]

The Fog of War — more propaganda against Monckton

Anson Cameron makes a PR contribution in the big fog of the Climate War (Please: don’t dump the Monck), and I must say that it’s more sophisticated than the 50 religious academics who have no answer to Monckton and are terrified he might — God-forbid — speak.

Cameron’s been called out from somewhere to go into damage control. The pro-tax-team might be catching on to the idea that academics and clumsy GetUP campaigns have helped the skeptics no end. (Ta boys!)

Cameron’s better than the brutes-of-silence, and pretends to be oh-so-sensible and wise, but in the end the pretext that underlies his commentary is a joke. He can point to lots of keywords that are ripe for mockery, but when it comes down to it, Mr Cameron can’t explain why Monckton is wrong on the climate. Oh, he can link to Real Climate and mention the Stefan-Boltzman equation, but can’t explain it (I assume, or he would have; this is his only substantial point after all).

Cameron resorts to ad hom after ad hom, probably doesn’t realize how anti-scientific that is, and pulls out all the usual Monckton Voodoo doll points to stick pins in. But, when it boils down [...]

Viscount Monckton answers Megan Clement of “Conversation”

Christopher Monckton

Answers by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

to questions by Megan Clement of “Conversation”

30 June 2011

All of the questions and answers herein must be reproduced in full: otherwise none of my answers may be disseminated in any form, in whole or in part.

* * *

Q. I’m mainly interested in your reaction to the petition that’s been going round in Western Australia urging Notre Dame to cancel your visit. Is this an issue of free speech?

I understand that the petition makes the following assertions, to which I shall respond seriatim:

Primo, I am alleged to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change” and to have distorted the research of countless scientists.

Please specify three instances in which I am thought to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change”, with a clear citation in each instance of my ipsissima verba, and provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations [...]