Australia’s CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) launched a new website yesterday.

Professor Paul Fraser says the site will publish data from the Cape Grim (Tasmania) Baseline Air Pollution Station displaying monthly atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

“No strings attached, no outside interpretation,” he says.

* * *

* OK. Let’s visit the site.

Heading, page one: “Cape Grim Greenhouse Gas Data”

Not “so-called Greenhouse Gas Data”.

The implication is that the above three gases are definitely what cause the greenhouse effect.

We’ve copped outside interpretation before even being given any data . . . .

* OK. Next comes a graph.

Just  watch the CO2 percentage climbing steeply during the few seconds the little cursor thing takes to cross the page.

Look again. In fact, these changes took decades. They’ve been speeded up to frighten you.

* OK. Check the axes of the graph.

The up and down direction is the CO2 level.

The bottom of the graph starts at — not zero — but at 300-odd.

If it started at zero, the slope would be almost imperceptible.

Remember this rule — if you see a graph where the bottom doesn’t start at zero, ignore it. Somebody is bending the facts.

* * *

If all human beings started living simply — because they understood the spiritual value of self-denial – emissions of carbon dioxide would dwindle.

Would that affect the temperature, rainfall etc?

Sounds unlikely. But it hardly matters.

If we don’t live by unselfish motives, we’re going to annihilate our race before there’s time for the climate to change much.

Dear God, give us the wisdom to remember that we are not owners of this world, but administrators . . . .

Give us grace to invest our wealth in the bank of heaven — by sharing generously and  justly with the poor, who are your children too . . . .

We in Australia talk about “cutting down on carbon”.

“Reducing our footprint”.

“Eliminating fossil fuels”.

But what are we doing?

Apart from planning taxes on all our serious sources of energy production . . . ?

* * *

Meanwhile in the USA Mr Obama announced two months ago that his country will be setting up four new biofuel/ethanol refineries within two years.         

With a view to cutting oil imports by a third by 2025 . . . .

Brazil, the world’s second largest producer of ethanol fuel, already has a sustainable biofuels economy.

Using locally-grown sugar cane, Brazil is producing 30 percent of the world’s total ethanol used as fuel.

In recent months Brazil is having a problem with rising fuel prices — sugar production being unable to keep up with increasing demand.

* * *

Northern Australia is one of the world’s few areas with the available land and suitable climate for a new major biofuels industry.

As things now stand, Australia’s sugar industry — thanks to past crazy deregulation policies — is barely surviving.

Land area devoted to sugar-growing is down 25 percent. Five of our sugar mills have closed. Our exports are uncompetitive.

Step one in reversing this decline would be to mandate a percentage of ethanol in fuel. Starting at 10 percent.

Followed by flex-fuel (from 10-100 percent ethanol) “variable mix” hoses at all service stations. 

* * *

When it comes to ethanol, Australians seem to get everything wrong.

The ethanol in motor fuels is the same substance that makes intoxicating drinks intoxicating. Yet we put it in our stomachs and brains, not in our fuel tanks.

We use ethanol to harm our health – whereas, properly used, it would enhance our health.             

European studies show that about half the mortality caused by air pollution is attributed to motor traffic.

Ethanol in fuel can lower air pollution by 65 percent, reducing lung disease.

Last Monday, Australia’s Independent Climate Change Commission released its first report.

The “Chief Commissioner” is Professor Tim Flannery.

Professor Flannery is described in Wikipedia as a “mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist”.

He is famous for being in favour of shutting down coal-fired power stations for electricity generation.

He was named “Australian of the Year” in 2007.

He is a great favourite of the media.

* * *

With Prof Tim in charge, it seems odd to call the Commission “independent”.

On Monday, he announced that human-induced global warming is “indisputable”.

Well it isn’t.

People do dispute it.

If the Commission was independent, it would have mentioned the evidence that casts doubt on the “greenhouse gases/carbon footprint” orthodoxy . . . .

If independent, there would have been a “minority report” from those Commission members unconvinced that taxing carbon dioxide-producers out of business will make the weather improve.

Was there no Commission member holding such a view?

Was this not so much an independent Commission as a carefully-selected bunch of clones of Brother Flannery?

* * *

Anyway, Prime Minister Julia Gillard is pleased with the Commission for producing a report saying exactly what she wanted them to say.

The Japanese earthquakes have caused distressing numbers of immediate deaths.

Will they be followed by a further, ongoing – currently unpredictable – death toll?

Friday’s quake damaged a cooling system at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

20-plus people have been taken to hospital due to having been exposed to radioactivity.

Over 100,000 people have been evacuated from the vicinity.

The Australian Greens Party leader, Bob Brown, says this proves that nuclear reactors are too dangerous for use in generating electricity – that nuclear energy is “outside the limits of human safeguards”.

* * *

Senator Brown conceding that there are limits to human safeguards?

Talk about a forked tongue.

When Brown discusses euthanasia, he says the opposite.

He and his Greens colleagues are forever sponsoring private members’ bills for legalising euthanasia.

Such bills always include “human safeguards” which, they assure us, are of infallible reliability — beyond all limits.

Yesterday this blog quoted a British poll which found 77 percent of people having apparently swallowed such propaganda — agreeing that people with “intolerable terminal illnesses” should be “helped to end their life”.

More deception.

What does “intolerable terminal illness” mean?

Doesn’t it simply mean terminal illness in a situation where no proper palliative care services are available to make the situation tolerable?

* * *

We Australians have a decision facing us.

We can be a society that provides palliative care, with specialist-level support in the form of pain-relief, nursing, counselling and spiritual resources . . . .

Or we can be a society that provides lethal syringes and lethal pills.

We cannot be both – the two cannot coexist.

Professor Ross Garnaut, the Federal Government’s official “climate change” adviser, says Sydney WILL suffer major inundation every year unless the government quickly imposes a “carbon tax”.

Not “might” but “will”.

That’s where he loses any support from most of us.

He knows it’s true. Other experts know that it isn’t true.

We nobodies know that neither side knows for sure.

* * *

Anyway the federal government proposing 5 per cent cuts to emissions by 2020 isn’t going to stop.

Not while the Greens want even bigger reductions.

They need the Greens on side to postpone their own removal from office . . . .

But they also need to please ordinary tax-paying householders and business people who provide the votes and donations that keep them in existence.

So they start talking “compensation”.

There they really give themselves away.

Either you want to reduce pollution or you don’t.  

Are they going to tax polluters — then give them their money back?

* * *

Try to remember how big the ocean is.

And how little we know about what makes it do what it does, temperature-wise.

El Nino and La Nina are mere words to cover our ignorance.

Humans over-rate themselves. Something is happening to the weather? It must be us — because we are so important.

Or are we?

The Bible says:  “O Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth! You have set your majesty above the heavens!  When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place — what is man, that you are mindful of him, mere mortals that you care for them?”

* * *

If we humans were less greedy and shared God’s gifts justly . . . .

And tried to be self-sufficient — producing as much of our food, clothing and shelter as possible within the family network . . . .

Then what?

It would be a different world.

Would there then be the kind of pollution that might conceivably cause climate change?

Probably not.

And you’d find your meals tasting a lot better.

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” said J. Gillard before last election.

Now she says she will introduce one next July.

Greens Party spokeswoman, Senator Milne, commented, “Majority governments would not have delivered this outcome.”

Correct. If Australia was a democracy, and majority opinion decided policy, the carbon tax nightmare could never happen.

Is our future to be determined by an ALP (which arguably lies) dictated to by a Greens Party (which arguably blackmails)?

Next election is a long time to wait.

* * *

Opposition Leader, Mr Abbott — warning of soaring power bills and petrol prices — is talking about a “people’s revolt”.

A trendy choice of words — but how to make it happen?

Will ordinary Australians arise from the sofa and sit outside Parliament House — making themselves a nuisance until the army is sent to shoot them?

It seems unlikely.

We know that rent-a-crowds can, indeed, be assembled in Australia.

For example, the APEC Australia 2007 meetings were disrupted by 5000 assembled protesters.

NSW Police erected a security perimeter around much of inner city Sydney. They allegedly had a list of 60 notorious “excluded persons”, to be kept far from any APEC activity.

Eventually 17 protesters were arrested. Two police officers were injured — one struck with an iron bar.

* * *

If we aren’t comfortable about semi-professional stirrers doing our protesting, what alternative is there?

Should the Church be doing something?

Cardinal Pell has made it clear that he is a “man-caused-global-warming” sceptic.

This prompted Bureau of Meteorology Director, Greg Ayres, to devote 10 minutes of his address to the Senate last week to criticising and belittling Cardinal Pell — trying to make him look like an ignoramus.

In fact, he simply made himself look like a would-be dictator.

Cardinal Pell must be doing something right.

His reputation for integrity means that his doubts re fundamentalist Climate Change dogma may hopefully encourage ordinary people to feel free to think for themselves.