Ziggy Zapata Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - www.ziggy.com.au - to open the entire Ziggy Zapata website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


In recent years up to around 1998, the planet Earth had a slight increase in overall temperature, quite a normal occurrence in historical terms. This has spawned a myriad of doomsayers, from former US Vice-President Al Gore to scads of scientists who have jumped onto the climate change bandwagon for whatever reasons they have found to justify their stance. Of course they are trying to make the case that humans are somehow responsible for this global warming and the catastrophic results that will ensue from it. However, in actual fact in 2007-2008, the earth has actually slightly cooled.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations international body that assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. Its reports have been the entire basis on which various emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes have been imposed to allegedly stop the planet from heating up.

In recent times, IPCC reports on global warming have been exposed as being falsified and in fact hard data has shown that the planet has actually slightly cooled in the past 20 years, despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. So the 'Global Warming' term was abandoned in favour of 'Climate Change', allowing the IPCC to hedge its bets as to which way global temperatures were going to move.

The carbon tax imposed by the former Gillard Labor government was based on the IPCC data that is so flaky, however many people have wondered about the real reason that this tax was imposed, even though it exposed Gillard as a monumental liar. Well, the truth about the so-called global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide increase and all the rest of the IPCC data has been exposed as a gigantic scam by none other than a top IPCC official who is right on the inside of this organisation.


At the time when hard research showed that the planet had started to cool, the IPCC stated in its 2003 report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Right there in that statement is the admission that the IPCC and anybody else is incapable of predicting long-term climate states. Therefore all the computer modelling in the world cannot be used to categorically state that there will be a global temperature increase of 1ºC to 2ºC or that carbon dioxide levels will increase because of human activity.

In fact, carbon dioxide levels have not risen to any great extent in the past century and they are historically low. At periods in the past, carbon dioxide levels were up at 1000 to 1200 parts per million and at this time, they are below 400 parts per million. Because plant life requires carbon dioxide, it means that even at around the present level, plants are not flourishing as they should and thus animal and insect life is reducing. The best thing for this planet would actually be to increase carbon dioxide levels to a marked degree, but this would not fit in with the narrative that is pushing the anthropogenic global warming and climate change scam.


In November 2010, German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated that climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources were to be negotiated. Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, "We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."


If anybody needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scam to redistribute wealth, the admission from one of the top IPCC people that instigated it is the absolute proof that it is a monstrous scam. Edenhofer stated, "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Edenhofer also stated, "Developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes." So out of this cockamamy theory about developed nations expropriating the world's atmosphere, which has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever, Edenhofer proposed that those nations be robbed by a stupid climate change scam that has no basis in fact either. And those so-called victim nations - they are not victims of anything, but Edenhofer and his quasi-communist gang at the IPCC want to rob nations purely on the basis that they have been successful and advanced.

Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." As such, Edenhofer was a huge player in advancing this theory, but he made it quite clear that this is actually an international socialistic economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth. As Australia's carbon tax was based on this amazing con-job, it therefore had absolutely no grounds to be imposed.


The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man's stewardship of the environment. But that is not true. Another United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference in Brussels in October 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty that environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference in December 2015, she added, "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

This is insanity on a global scale, allowing the UN to manipulate the planet for the redistribution of wealth by using this bogus climate change scam to destroy capitalism, the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked. The evidence is prima facie. From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming 'the economic development model' because she's really never seen it work. "If you look at Ms Figueres' Wikipedia page," noted Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left. But her admission merely adds to the confession of Ottmar Edenhofer that the UN is using the climate change scam to bring the modern world to its knees in some sort of ideological mania.


In 2013 in the USA, according to reports, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan were 740mm below their average measurements taken since 1918. Scientists warned communities that they could only expect more tragedy with the Great Lakes. With a lack of rain from human-caused climate change, they told everyone to expect levels to continue to drop. In an April 2013 report from the International Joint Commission, a group with members from the United States and Canada that advises on water resources, said that their five-year study concluded that water levels in the lakes were likely to drop even farther, in part because of the lack of precipitation in recent years brought on by human-caused climate change.

Yet after this warning that the Great Lakes were in serious trouble and to expect lower water levels, they encountered quite a surprise. The Great Lakes water levels were rising and drastically so. This development startled scientists and thrilled just about everybody with a stake in the waterfront, including owners of beach houses, retailers in tourist areas and dockmasters who run marinas on the lake shore. In 2014, Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior were at least 305mm higher than they were a year before and were expected to rise 76mm more over just one month. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie were 25mm higher in 2014 than in 2013.

Scientists partially attribute the rise in water levels to the frigid winters and abundance of rain in the US Midwest, but climate change researchers failed to predict the dramatic reversal of trends. One politician wanting to emphasise his knowledge of climate said, "Climate change is real, it's happening today, the potential economic impact of climate change particularly on water levels is significant." His statement just showed that he had no idea about climate change if he claimed that humans were causing it. Yes, climate change is real. It changes from day to day, from year to year and century to century, but that does not mean that puny mankind can affect it globally.

Then there are the winters. One of the coldest winters on record covered most of the Great Lakes with ice in the 12 months to July 2014, including an entirely iced-over Lake Superior. That year was the longest that ice has been seen on Lake Superior in 40 years of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records.

The Great Lakes hit the second-highest ice coverage on record on 06 March 2014, with 92% of the five lakes covered in ice. Temperatures in the Great Lakes region averaged 4ºC below normal from January to April 2014. More than a third of the Great Lakes remained covered in ice by mid-April and that caused problems for shipping. The Coast Guard was out on the lakes breaking up ice from early December 2013.

Other Information tells the story. In 1911 Niagara Falls froze, but in 2014 it froze over twice. Four of the five top snowiest winters in the USA occurred since 2008. Europe suffered the same temperature falls. In February 2012, temperatures in Germany, plummeted to -19.6C. During the same month temperatures in Russia plunged to -28.5C, while temperatures in Beijing, China dropped to -7.8 C. This deep chill was not just a one-off. Similar episodes were recorded across Eurasia in January 2010, December 2009, January 2008 and January 2006.

German meteorologist Dominik Jung was correct when he observed, "Climate experts forecasts change as fast as the weather." The truth is that the Earth's average temperature has not risen since 1996. In fact the climate takes care of itself by averaging all this out. The evidence against man-caused global warming keeps piling up and as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "A lie can travel the world before the truth can get its pants on." And the mantra about humans causing global climate change is a lie.


In February 2014, British scientists found that carbon dioxide stored in an isolated reservoir deep in the Southern Ocean re-connected with the atmosphere, driving a rise in atmospheric CO2 and an increase in global temperatures. An international team, including Yale paleoclimatologist Michael Henehan, studied the shells of ancient marine organisms that lived in surface waters of the southern Atlantic and eastern equatorial Pacific oceans thousands of years ago. The researchers determined that high concentrations of dissolved CO2 in those waters coincided with rises in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures at the end of the last ice age.

This proves that human-caused climate change is utter nonsense. The oceans store and release CO2 in cycles and this is what causes global warming and cooling. In fact it has been proven that the Earth goes through these cycles approximately every 800 years and in the last warming cycle, frozen places like Greenland were actually sub-tropical. Science and facts don't lie. The people who lie are those who are driving the push for a global Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits, because they will make a fortune from promulgating this nonsense that humans are driving up the temperature of the planet. In fact the statistics prove that they are lying, because since around 1996, the planet has been cooling and there is no sign of global warming at all.


The most preposterous notion involving the theory of human-caused climate change is that the pathetic efforts of humans can somehow affect global climatic conditions and that reduction of human-emitted carbon dioxide will somehow reduce global warming and thus reduce the greenhouse effect.

What firstly needs to be understood is that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the sustenance of life on Earth. If there was no greenhouse effect trapping heat and keeping temperatures at the current levels, life on this planet would become untenable. The average surface temperature would be around minus four degrees. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, so if this dissipated, the surface of the planet would be as dry as Mars.

In other words, the greenhouse effect is not something bad, as many of these climate change scaremongers are trying to insinuate. It is the most important facet of life on Earth as we know it. Greenhouse gas emissions do not cause any detriment to the planet - they actually help sustain our existence.


The other preposterous notion is that human emissions can somehow influence global climate. In fact it is easy to show that one natural occurrence can make human efforts in this regard look like a drop in the ocean.

Puyehoe Volcano
The Puyehue volcano in Chile erupting in June 2011

For instance, in just four days, the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland in 2010 negated every single effort by humans to control CO2 emissions for at least five years. The eruption of the Puyehue volcano in Chile in 2011 did much the same. But the killer was Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines that erupted in 1991 for more than one year and spewed out more pollutants than the whole human race managed to emit in 40 billion years of existence on the planet. And there are over 100 active volcanoes on the planet at any one time.

This is not to say that humans should just continue emitting pollutants. In fact humans should do what they can to ensure that they don't contribute to a degradation of the environment, but to claim that human emissions can compete with volcanoes, cosmic phenomena, solar activity, oceanic CO2 emissions and other natural phenomena is just ridiculous. But the most ridiculous concept is that a tax on CO2 will somehow stop those emissions.


The real reason for this iniquitous carbon tax was that in a world where bankers create and manipulate the money supply and the slow collapse of economic growth in the industrialised world, a new form of trading had to be found. Globalisation, privatisation and the worldwide finance disasters that required massive bailouts of the bankers who caused them meant that many industrialised nations were essentially bankrupt. The creation of money without tangible assets to back it had finally wreaked havoc on nations such as the USA that influence the world economy and where creditor nations are slowly reducing their intake of debt.

So as the world moved from production to consumption, the emphasis was shifting to the creation of a new economy based on taxing that consumption, firstly by means of creating false pretexts such as man-caused global warming or the very open-ended man-caused climate change, then finding a way to raise money by imposing taxes to combat this bogus problem.

Journalist Richard K Moore wrote a fascinating and very detailed analysis of this situation called 'Prognosis 2012: Towards a New World Social Order' that explains why governments around the world have pushed for emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, even though they all know that such taxes will not reduce emissions.

The truth is that it would be counterproductive for emissions that are taxed to be reduced or eliminated, simply because that would reduce or eliminate the revenue. It is the same principle that applies to governments that raise vast amounts of revenue from motoring infringements. The last thing that those governments want is for motorists to stop speeding or committing other bookable offences, because if they did, the revenue would dry up and those governments would suffer catastrophic reductions in their budgets.

So the same would happen if if polluters actually did reduce emissions. The tax rate would rise to compensate for the reduced revenue, but if polluters did manage to actually reduce their emissions to a marked degree, governments that relied on the rakeoff from carbon taxes and emission trading would collapse. So there is absolutely no incentive for anybody to reduce emissions and the whole scam relies on taxpayers literally paying hefty levies on all goods to ostensibly reduce emissions, but those emissions won't be reduced at all, not as long as governments need them to be there to be taxed.


Michael O'Leary, the head of British airline Ryanair, had a far more blunt and colourful response to the proponents of an ETS or a carbon dioxide tax. He quite rightly pointed out that scientists were pushing the global warming or climate change barrow and had made dire predictions for the world for the next century, based on rather flawed and sometimes deliberately manipulated computer modelling, but were incapable of accurately predicting the weather two weeks in the future.

"It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit!"
Michael O'Leary, CEO of airline Ryanair


Around 31,000 top scientists around the world have stated unequivocally that human-caused global warming or climate change is utter nonsense. Here are a few statements from such eminent scholars.


Paleontologist Tim Flannery, another self-professed climate change expert, was being paid around $180,000 to sit on the Climate Commission by the Labor government to push its carbon tax onto Australia, however he has made so many wrong predictions over the years, that nobody could ever take him seriously. Among Flannery's litany of wrong predictions are these gems:

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water. Sydney's dam levels in 2011 were 73% full and rising.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20% decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems." In 2011, the Murray-Darling system was in flood. Brisbane's dam levels were 100% full and according to figures from Wivenhoe Dam's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106%full on the morning of 07 January 2011 to 148% on the morning of 10 January 2011, much of this excess water having to be released into the Brisbane River.

In 2007, Flannery predicted that global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. He stated, "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20% of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie took such predictions so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayer money on a desalination plant, saying "It is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate". That desalination plant is now mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned - not just rains, but the worst flooding in Queensland's history - and $90 million has gone down the toilet.

In 2008, Flannery said, "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009." Adelaide's water storage levels in 2011 were 77% full. So far, Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages have been so far off the mark, that anybody who takes this man seriously would have to be insane. His influence on various Labor governments has resulted in the squandering of untold millions of dollars of taxpayer funds.

For instance, back in 2007, Flannery warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff. This was a load of rubbish in itself, as nations such as China are purchasing more coal than ever before to burn for energy. However, Flannery suggested that Australia should switch to 'green' power instead and he recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," Flannery said. "The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward." Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology and in 2009, the Rudd Labor government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. It should be known that Flannery has been a Geodynamics shareholder for many years.

This tip from Flannery turned into disaster. The technology Flannery said was "relatively straightforward" wasn't. One of Geodynamics's five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement. The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in an alleged warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further delayed, following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region.

With this abysmal track record, how on earth did Flannery land the cushy $180,000 position on the Climate Commission? There's only one explanation - that the Labor government found itself a tame scientist to push its carbon tax agenda and although Flannery was not a climate scientist by any means, many people considered him to be some sort of authority because he was a scientist of sorts - although with nothing to do with climatology.

The fact that federal and state governments, all of them Labor, actually listened to Flannery, took his advice and squandered so much taxpayer money was an indictment on their gullibility and irresponsibility. Even worse was that this insane Labor government was not only still listening to Flannery, but was paying him around $3000 per week for his baloney. But the gross waste of this money paled into insignificance compared to the impost of the carbon tax until it was repealed. Fortunately, when the Abbott Liberal government won power in 2013, they booted Flannery out on his ear.


In March 2011, climate change apologist Tim Flannery was asked that if Australians were going to be taxed for emitting carbon dioxide, surely they should at least be given an idea on how much their tax contribution will help cool the planet. He was told that if the taxes of Australians are going to be used to cool the climate, it would only be fair that Australians should know by how much. Flannery could not answer this question. He thought that a probable amount might be 0.5%, but he could not be sure.

Flannery was then asked how long would it take before this enforced carbon dioxide tax contribution would start to show signs that it is working. His answer was stunning in the extreme.

Flannery stated to journalist Andrew Bolt, "If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years." But Flannery wasn't talking about the lousy 1.3% that humans in Australia allegedly emit - he was talking about ALL nations cutting ALL greenhouse gases globally. However, this was merely a guess on his part, because if the truth be known, Flannery did not have the foggiest notion of what would happen to the climate, whether humans keep emitting the same stuff or we close down everything and crawl off to live in caves and eat worms.

But having admitted this, Flannery was still acting as the federal government's climate change apologist and travelling around the nation promoting a carbon tax, knowing damn well that it would not reduce CO2 emissions and even if it did succeed, it would only reduce global greenhouse emissions by around one-millionth. It was obvious that Flannery, who was being paid a lot of money for doing this, was prepared to promote this new religion that had such a detrimental effect on the entire Australian population, knowing that it was a scam.

Flannery's admission clearly demonstrated what a gigantic scam the proposed carbon tax really was. This insane tax was not even aiming to eradicate that whole 1.3% of all Australian human-emitted greenhouse gases, but just 5% of the CO2 component, which is 3.6% of the total. But when did a tax actually stop something? Have high taxes stopped people from smoking, drinking alcohol or driving cars? Of course not - in fact, the last thing any government reaping revenue from taxes wants to see is a reduction of that revenue.


The government and proponents of this new tax relied on the ignorance of the general public as to what was really going to be taxed. The very name of this tax was completely false. It was called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because the general public associated carbon with that sooty black stuff that came out of the chimneys of factories and power stations. Nothing was further from the truth.



In May 2011, the first report by the Government's Climate Commission (CC) warned that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the last decade the hottest on record. This report stated that the biological world was changing in response to a warming world. It also stated that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation were triggering the changes that are being witnessed in the global climate.

But this was just another government attempt to scam the people of Australia. The Climate Commission members were handpicked by the Gillard Labor government on the basis that they had to believe in climate change. No skeptics or completely independent scientists were permitted to be on this Commission. In other words, it was the same situation as only appointing judges that were sympathetic to the government's political line and no judge who was totally independent would be considered.

On top of that, the Climate Commission's findings were a pile of rubbish. This bunch of government-appointed stooges claimed that people were to blame for rising temperatures, with the past decade being the hottest on record. They very conveniently forgot to mention all the drastic heating that the planet had undergone in the past, with temperatures far higher than anything in the present era. In fact about 800 years ago, icy Greenland was sub-tropical and the Arctic was navigable by ships. There are many more instances of severe global heating, as well as a number of ice ages.

This Climate Commission also stated that if nothing was done about alleged human-caused pollution, the planet's temperature would rise by 2º by 2050, less than 40 years away. This completely flew in the face of the statement of the head of the International Panel for Climate Change, who stated that the planet's temperature would rise by no more than 0.5º in a century. So who is to be believed? Actually none of them. All the predictions were based on completely flawed computer modelling, no better than a long-range weather forecast or a wild guess.

It was amazing to see the depths to which the Gillard Labor government stooped to impose a CO2 tax. This bunch of inept clowns, having already destroyed the Australian economy with a monumental series of blunders and scams, rigged a Climate Commission that could never be believed by any rational person.


In June 2011, Governor Chris Christie of the US state of New Jersey announced that New Jersey would withdraw from a 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program by the end of 2011, saying the program was ineffective at combating global warming. He stated, "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure."

"RGGI does nothing more than tax electricity, tax our citizens, tax our businesses, with no discernible or measurable impact upon our environment," Christie said. Critics of cap-and-trade programs said that they constituted a new form of taxation because they imposed additional costs on electric utilities that were then passed on to customers.

Governor Christie hit the nail right on the head with New Jersey's withdrawal from this scheme, simply because what he said was quite correct. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme or carbon tax will have no discernible or measurable impact on the environment. And no politician or scientist has yet been able to definitively show that human-caused CO2 emission caused global warming, climate change or any other problem.

Of course the big problem with any sort of tax or impost on electricity generators is that they would merely pass the additional cost onto their customers and still keep emitting the same CO2 if not more, as demand increases. This is how all businesses operate, by factoring all expenses into their products and setting prices for those products that contain the expenses. In other words, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme would not reduce pollution by one iota.


For years we have been inundated with the spectre of man-caused climate change that started off as global warming until the wheels fell off it when it was found that the planet started cooling around 1996. Since then, we have suffered a completely unnecessary carbon tax that was not about the element carbon at all, but about carbon dioxide gas (CO2). Politicians and climate change warriors keep referring to this issue as “carbon pollution”, which is completely false. They are trying to mislead ignorant people into believing that the atmosphere is being polluted by carbon emissions.

Carbon dioxide is a molecule comprising of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. It is not the element carbon on its own and is a completely different substance. So calling carbon dioxide (CO2) 'carbon' is like calling water (H2O) 'oxygen', because water is comprised of one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen. Most people are fooled by this false propaganda because they have not studied chemistry and just swallow what the climate change warriors say.

In fact most people have absolutely no idea about this whole subject and many people will think that if they support the destruction of our fossil-fuelled baseload power generation capacity and replace it with intermittent wind and solar power, the world will suddenly be a better place. How wrong they are - and the result to Australia will be catastrophic.

So let's look at this insane pursuit to deal with this alleged man-caused climate change that is being blamed on 'carbon' – a ploy to trick people into thinking that the problem is that black sooty stuff in chimneys, not the gas CO2. But the first step is to understand what CO2 is.  

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a tasteless, odourless and colourless gas. But how many people know how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere. Surveys conducted among average citizens have shown that most of them think that CO2 comprises up to a whopping 80% of the atmosphere. Even the lowest percentage quoted by people was around 2% to 5%. So it proves that they do not have a clue about it.


Here is the composition of the main gases in the atmosphere in percentages represented in red on a 100mm scale, 1mm being equivalent to 1% of the atmosphere.

You might be wondering where the CO2 is on the Carbon Dioxide ruler above, because it's not very apparent. But if you look very carefully, you will see a tiny red trace on the left of the first notch. That is how much CO2 is in our atmosphere – just 0.04% - 1/25th of JUST 1 PERCENT. Almost nothing in relation to the other main gases. And this is what these climate change scammers are blaming on man-caused climate change that they claim will melt the Arctic and raise the oceans to overwhelm all those low-level islands.


Al Gore, who really started this scam in collusion with the United Nations, said in 2007 that by 2013, the Arctic will have melted and the oceans will have risen to inundate all coastlines. None of this has happened and ice packs in Antarctica are growing and glaciers in New Zealand, Iceland, Greenland and other places are expanding. But all this evidence of global cooling is either being ignored or amazingly, being blamed on global warming.

But this is the same Al Gore, whose so-called 'documentary' called 'An Inconvenient Truth' that was an utter load of nonsense, has been debunked to such an extent that nearly all respectable educational establishments have banned it as being a work of fiction. Here are a few of Gore's predictions:

In 2006, he claimed that the planet would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. THE TRUTH - We are still here.

In the same year, he predicted that sea levels would rise by just over 6 metres in the near future. THE TRUTH - Gore bought a giant 9 bathroom mansion overlooking the beach in Montecito California. Obviously Gore does not believe his own predictions of catastrophic sea rise.

In 2008, he claimed that the north polar cap would be completely ice-free within five years. THE TRUTH - The North Pole ice cap is still there and growing.

In 2011, he claimed that polar bears would soon become close to extinction. THE TRUTH - The number of polar bears has risen dramatically in the past 8 years.

Like Al Gore, Australia's own former 'Climate Commissioner' Tim Flannery, who was appointed to that position by Australian Labor Party (ALP) and was paid $3,000 per week by the taxpayer, made many dire predictions for more than a decade about the catastrophe of this alleged man-made global warming and every single prediction was wrong. Flannery predicted that Australia would be in permanent drought and that dams would dry up and never be refilled. Even after the ridicule he received and his sacking as Climate Commissioner, as late as 2016, Flannery was at it again, claiming that the number of severe cyclones was predicted to increase as the warming affected the ocean surface. As per Flannery's litany of other failed predictions, the number of severe cyclones has decreased.


But the reality of the climate change scam was exposed beyond question when Ottmar Edenhofer, the co-author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confessed that the UN climate change policy had little or nothing to do with climate change. In fact the whole thing was a scheme for the socialist redistribution of wealth.

Edenhofer stated – ON THE RECORD - that climate policy has almost nothing to do with environmental protection. He admitted that the world climate summit in Cancun in December 2010 was actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources were to be negotiated. Edenhofer brazenly told Germany's NZZ Online that, "We redistribute de-facto the world's wealth by climate policy."


If anybody needed any more evidence that the entire theory of man-made global warming was a scam to redistribute wealth, the damning admission from one of the co-authors of the IPCC policy that instigated it is the absolute proof that it is a monstrous racket. But here is a simple explanation of how this redistribution of wealth using bogus climate change and carbon credit actually works.


In 2011, climate sceptic Dr Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn State." At issue was Mann's famous 'hockey stick' graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001). Mann sued Ball for libel but in 2019, the court in British Columbia dismissed Mann's lawsuit with prejudice and assessed costs against him.

Ball asserted a truth defence. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. It was absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball's statement about him that he belonged in the state pen was true or false. If Mann had produced data proving that his graph was accurate, he would have won the matter.

Mann stated that his lawyers were considering an appeal. The truth is that Mann can appeal to his heart's content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false. So Michael Mann and his 'hockey stick' graph are discredited and Mann's refusal to divulge the data that he used to construct that graph shows that he is an out-and-out fraudster. It also proves that the climate change warriors who are relying on that graph to support their position are totally deluded.


There are two nations - call them Metropolis and Backwater. Metropolis is a wealthy and advanced western industrial nation with factories churning out products and selling them globally. On the other hand, Backwater is a third-world country in Africa that produces absolutely nothing of value, has no industries and the main occupation of its people is slaughtering each other in incessant tribal warfare, as they have done for many thousands of years.

Metropolis is wealthy from its industries and emits 100 tons of CO2 per year. But because of the pretext of climate change, the UN has mandated that every nation is allocated 50 carbon credits per year, each credit covering 1 ton of CO2. So if a nation wants to emit 100 tons of CO2 per year, it has to purchase 50 carbon credits.

Metropolis needs to find a nation that is not using its allocation of 50 carbon credits and buy them at the going rate of $1 million per carbon credit. Aha – Backwater, that undeveloped nation has an allocation of 50 carbon credits and is not using them because it has no industries. So Metropolis proceeds to purchase Backwater's 50 carbon credits for $50 million dollars. All too easy.


Because Metropolis has purchased those 50 carbon credits, it will still emit 100 tons of CO2. This will make no difference to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Backwater still has no industries and doesn't produce one useful thing, but it just becomes $50 million richer for doing nothing. In simple terms, there has been a socialist redistribution of wealth from Metropolis to Backwater. But because Metropolis is now paying for those carbon credits to allow it to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as before, it means that all its products will be that much more expensive. Metropolis has just forked out $50 million by being taxed for nothing but air and the increased cost of having that tax tacked onto its products will be a direct tax on consumers.


This is exactly what all these emissions trading schemes and carbon credits are all about. Nothing will change. The same amount of CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. It's just that industrialised nations will be taxed on it and those carbon taxes will go to undeveloped third-world countries and the scammers will rake-off their percentage and become multi-billionaires. It's a grandiose socialist scam to redistribute wealth to those undeveloped nations.

The money from those carbon credits won't go to the people of those third-world nations. Just as foreign aid is misappropriated by the tyrants and despots who rule those nations, the money will nearly always wind up in the pockets of those tyrants and despots – bastards like the unlamented Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who became a multi-billionaire while he turned a blind eye to the murder of white farmers and orchestrated the theft of their farms and turned his nation into a catastrophe while his people starved.

We used to joke that one day, the government would figure out how to impose a tax on air. We thought that this was funny and could not really happen – but that is exactly what has happened with an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. The UN has given governments the pretext to impose a tax on emissions of something that is not a pollutant, but is an essential component of life on Earth. All they are doing is putting a tax on the air that we exhale, therefore that tax is also imposed on the air that we inhale.


The climate change warriors do not seem to consider any other factors except carbon dioxide in their campaign to allegedly reduce global warming. So here is the step-by-step mathematics of the situation in round figures.


Percentage of total CO2: 0.04% (1/25th of 1 percent)

Percentage of naturally occurring CO2: 97% (humans cannot do anything about this)

Percentage of man-caused CO2: 3% (humans can try to reduce this)

So we multiply the percentage of total CO2 in the atmosphere by the amount of CO2 that humans produce to calculate what percentage of total atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans.

Calculation: 0.04 x 0.03 = 0.0012% (say 1/100th of 1 percent in round figures)

CONCLUSION: Man-made CO2 is around 1/100th of 1 percent.


Australia's contribution to total man-caused CO2 in the atmosphere: 1.3% (say 1% in round figures)

So we multiply the percentage of total man-caused CO2 by the amount of CO2 that Australia contributes.

Calculation: 1/100th of 1 percent x 1% = 0.00001% (that is 1/100,000th of one percent)

CONCLUSION: Australia contributes around 1/100,000th of 1 percent to total CO2 in the atmosphere, which is virtually immeasurable. Even if Australia vanished completely off the face of the planet, the loss of its immeasurable CO2 emissions would not have the slightest difference to the atmosphere, global warming or any other climate change. But Australia is not going to vanish, so what has to be considered is the projected target of CO2 by Australia.


The Australian government aims to reduce Australian man-caused CO2 by around 25% by 2050. Currently, Australia contributes an unmeasurable 1/100,000th of 1 percent to total CO2 in the atmosphere. If a 25% reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions is achieved, which is highly unlikely, the reduction would bring Australia's CO2 emissions down by another immeasurable amount. So we multiply Australia's current emissions by 75% to calculate how much CO2 Australia will be emitting in terms of total atmospheric CO2 if this can even be achieved.

Calculation: 0.00001% x 0.75 = 0.0000025% (say 1/133,000 of 1 percent in round numbers)

CONCLUSION: If this proposed reduction is even achieved, Australia will have reduced its man-caused CO2 emissions to 1/133,000th of 1 percent by 2050. This is completely unmeasurable and will make no difference to the climate. However, the Australian people will suffer a lot of pain in experiencing rising energy prices and most probably a “carbon” tax as well, making everything more expensive for no good reason.


Climate change warriors want every nation to reduce CO2 because they claim that this gas is the prime cause of global warming and climate change. They have totally ignored a whole raft of other factors that outweigh CO2 by a massive amount. There are emissions from the more than 1,500 active volcanoes on the surface and another 4,000 undersea volcanoes that produce a range of climate-affecting gases such as sulphur dioxide, CO2, hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide and other toxic gases. There is nothing that the human race can do about this.

There is the sun, which is the giver of all life on Earth. The climate is strongly affected by solar radiation. As variation in solar radiation is the single most important factor affecting climate, there is nothing that the human race can do about this. So the question is – what can humans do to mitigate this alleged global warming? 


The reason that there is life on Earth is the greenhouse effect. In aviation, the Standard Atmosphere is used as a baseline to calculate aircraft performance. The Standard Atmosphere is 15º Celsius temperature and an atmospheric pressure of 1013 millibars at sea level. The reason that the Standard Atmosphere temperature is 15ºC is because the greenhouse effect stops heat from dissipating from the surface of Earth.

What would the standard temperature be if there was no greenhouse effect? Experts have calculated that if greenhouse gases were not present, the mean surface temperature would be MINUS 19ºC. There would be no plant life at that temperature and certainly no crops for food. Therefore there would be no animal life that could survive at MINUS 19ºC without food. The human race would become extinct because there would be no food or crops.

The human race is reliant on the greenhouse effect for its existence, but what is it? Climate change warriors claim that CO2 is the villain in the greenhouse effect that is causing global warming, yet CO2 comprises only 20% of total greenhouse gases. So the other 80% of greenhouse gases must logically also have a much larger effect than CO2.


We can immediately see that the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapour. It evaporates into the atmosphere mostly from the oceans that cover 70% of the Earth's surface and a certain percentage evaporates from inland seas and rivers. But there is absolutely nothing that the human race can do about reducing global water vapour, despite it being the prime cause of the greenhouse effect, around 3½ time more abundant than CO2.

So the human race cannot do anything about water vapour. Methane comprises just 5% of greenhouse gases and most of it is produced by the stomachs of cattle, fermentation in rice fields, fracking for natural gas, coal mines, festering bogs, burning forests and let's not forget human farting. To reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere by a small percentage, we could kill all the cattle, stop growing rice, stop searching for natural gas, close down all the coal mines and of course - stop farting.

Of course this is totally unfeasible and there is nothing that humans can do about festering bogs, burning forests and other natural emitters of methane such as volcanoes. Even if the human race took measures to reduce methane, the difference would be insignificant. There are other trace gases that collectively amount to 5% of greenhouse gases. These gases occur naturally and again, there is nothing that humans can do about them.

CONCLUSION: The anthropogenic climate change proponents concentrate solely on CO2 emissions, yet totally ignore the greatest greenhouse gas component, water vapour that is 3½ times the level of CO2. The obvious reason is that they know that water vapour in the atmosphere is produced by oceanic and terrestrial evaporation and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. There is nothing much that they can do about methane and the trace gases in the greenhouse effect. But a tiny percentage of CO2 produced by humans is being blamed as the villain that is causing global temperature to rise.

The illogic of the Climate Change Warriors is abundantly clear. They claim that the 3% of human-emitted CO2 is causing all of this allegedly catastrophic global warming, yet they want the world to believe that the 97% of naturally occurring CO2 is not doing anything. They ignore the fact that the greatest source of carbon dioxide in nature are the oceans. More CO2 will be produced by oceans than any natural or manmade source by far. CO2 in the air is absorbed into oceans, then is used by the life living in those oceans, but the Climate Change Warriors never mention this in their quest to blame humans for the tiny 3% of CO2 that they emit.


We know that this whole man-caused climate change is a scam. We know that Al Gore, Michael Mann and all the rest of the global warming crowd fabricated and deliberately fudged their data. We know that the UN IPCC confessed that it is a socialist wealth redistribution scam. So should Australia just go along with it and be scammed, just because emotional blackmail is being inflicted on us? Of course not. This is what Australia needs to do.

The evidence is on the table that the man-caused global warming and climate change is a racket, as confessed by the very perpetrators of the IPCC who admitted that the whole thing is about the socialist redistribution of wealth. The mathematics showing the minuscule amount of anthropogenic CO2 would have literally no effect on climate and in any case, more CO2 would be beneficial. So if we know that it's a scam and it has been admitted, why the hell are we still being suckered by it?

The LNP have a climate change policy and so does the ALP. The Greens have always had a destructive political agenda, so it's no use trying to convince them that it's a scam. But at least the LNP tend to be the most sensible and pragmatic of those political parties and one would think that the movers and shakers in the LNP would look at the information about the scam and just refuse to allow this nation to be suckered by it. But for some insane reason, even the LNP is buying into this bogus man-caused climate change.

The truth is that CO2 is a trace gas of such tiny proportion in the atmosphere, that even if it doubled overnight, we would notice hardly any difference. Not only that, nature produces 97% of this relatively tiny amount of CO2 and what man produces is completely insignificant. If we were in a room that had the current level of around 0.04% CO2 and it doubled to 0.08% - that's less than one-tenth of 1%, we wouldn't even be aware of it. The only thing that would happen is that possibly over some period of time, the pot plants in the room would flourish more and produce more oxygen for us to breathe. The stupidity of the climate change scam is that these fraudsters are talking about a microscopic component of our atmosphere not doubling, but increasing by a tiny percentage over the next century.


But what would actually happen if the level of CO2 doubled to 0.08%? The nett result would be that crops would be more abundant, plant life would benefit and by corollary, animals and humans would benefit greatly by the increased oxygen that the plant life produced. It has already been proven by NASA satellite data that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 has been 'greening' the planet. However, what would happen if this insane scam to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere actually came about?

According to respected scientists and climate experts, if current CO2 levels halved to 0.02%, the planet would experience mass extinctions of animals and massive crop failures that would lead to starvation on a global scale. This is what those schemers who are pushing for a reduction in atmospheric CO2 are not telling people. But it will not happen because humans cannot achieve even a small increase or decrease in CO2 levels, but the concept of global warming by human activity is the basis of the scam and like many strange cults, people will believe this nonsense because people are gullible.

We have to call out the scam and refuse to be taken in by it any further. It was bad enough that Australia was suckered by former Prime Minister and proven liar Julia Gillard, who stole an election by declaring, "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" and she promptly imposed that ridiculous tax shortly after the ALP was elected.


Unless human ingenuity can somehow control the cyclic radiation patterns and other solar phenomena and put a plug in every active volcano, we are stuck with periodic global warming and cooling and of course we need the greenhouse effect for our very survival. So when politicians and others trumpet about these phenomena being caused by human activity, tell them to get lost, because they are lying to you.