February 08, 2013 | Ronda Jambe

Are NASA and NOAA fixing the data on climate change?

If they are, we are all truly ruined.

But I don’t think they are distorting the data. Where then is the evidence to support the position some have taken in comments here that global temperatures have fallen?

One simpleton even has used childhood memories of beach sand extent as ‘evidence’ of a sea level drop. Try to replicate that in a double blind experiment.

I invite the remaining obdurate sceptics to examine these posts to science news, and identify where the deceit, lies, and ungodly purchasing of scientific opinion can be found. Unlike the sporting world, scientists are less inclined to take performance enhancing (or psychedelic substances)

2012 Global Temperatures 10th Highest on Record

2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend, NASA Finds

Perhaps it would be wiser to follow the money, and see who gains the most from fossil fuel exports.

Opps! that would be our own government, which has opened the Tarkine wilderness in Tassie for mining, and looks set to approve the colossal Carmichael coal mine in north Queensland.

Since internal contradictions are themselves beautifully non-linear, our own government funded media warns us that even our daily bread is threatened by climate change, but then I’m mad as a cut snake and can’t get past the suicidal stupidity of not acting while we can. And I’m many times less gracious than Al Gore in trying to get the points across:

Climate change threatens food security

Maybe I’ll sign up for that bread-making workshop at Moruya after all.


Posted by Ronda Jambe at 9:10 pm | Comments (3) |
Filed under: Uncategorized


  1. The problem here and for the rest of the world, are parliaments full of recalcitrant elitists, sure in the knowledge, they know best?
    Other than that, there seems to be a medley of self serving corrupt officials, or those who will do or say anything to progress purely personal ambition.
    Be it the Gordon Gretch affair or Ashbygate?
    There is only one real solution and that is to put every current incumbent last on the ballot paper, until all the dross/masquerade, is cleaned out of our parliaments and replaced by GENUINELY CONCERNED individuals, able to set aside personal ambition, in favour of affirmative action on climate change.
    [Just don’t hold your breath waiting for essential long overdue change/reform!]
    And I don’t mean just Australian parliaments, but govts across the globe!
    The biggest polluters first!
    We could force some change by adopting some change ourselves.
    There’s an interesting book titled, Thorium cheaper than coal.
    And we have enough thorium to power the world for 600 years.
    Simply put, the first nation to adopt this cheaper than coal carbon free energy, will see high tech, energy dependant manufacturing, from across the globe, beating a path to their door!
    Particularly if we adopt long advocated, genuine and pragmatic tax reform and simplification as well!
    Yes, coal sales will diminish to much more sustainable levels, or be exploited as coal seam gas.
    Gas produces 40% less carbon than coal, given methane is mostly hydrogen!
    There isn’t a car, truck or train currently plying road or rail that can’t be re-jigged to run on CNG.
    Moreover, replacing the conventional engine in a hybrid, with a ceramic cell, will remove 80-90% of the moving parts and massively increase the available gas powered range, given the substantially better, energy coefficient!
    Economies of scale will likely reduce the price of the ceramic cell, until it competes with current conventional engine technology?
    Moreover, utilising gas in this way, produces mainly water vapour!
    Piping the peoples’ gas directly to the home, via a national gas grid, and then turning it into power on demand, and endless free hot water, via ceramic fuel cells, would halve Co2 emission yet again; given, around 50% of coal fired emission, is created in the wires, as transmission line losses.
    Moreover, given the energy coefficient of 60% of the ceramic cell option, compared to coal-fired power, of just 20%, the ceramic cell energy, could be reticulated for just a third of that charged by centralised power companies.
    Given economies of scale, the household size ceramic fuel cell, could be reduced to around 5 grand, and paid off over say five years, with the gas bill?
    For far too long, we have been saying, make it dearer, and the fossil fuel companies just love it and the sound of the cash register, claiming trillions more, from a vast captive market.
    We should stop singing their tune/doing their dirty work for them; or making them ever more rich and powerful, but rather, chart our own course and supply our own energy needs, with what we the people still own.
    Namely copious gas.
    The govt can make all the spurious claims it likes, like that old chestnut, the govt has no business in business!
    Tell that piece of pure unadulterated nonsense to the Scandinavians, or the equally pragmatic Singaporeans, and they will likely laugh in your face, or all the way to the bank.
    Tiny Norway has a massive income earning sovereign fund, just by setting aside most of the money it earned from finite north sea oil resources.
    I’m not saying that we should ape that example, just the pragmatism that led to its creation.
    There is simply no way the world can use less energy and grow enough food, in the face of changed growing conditions, courtesy of climate change!
    This is why the next boom will be a food boom; and why we will likely have to invest increasing amounts of energy, into water desal plants and or recycling, or some combination of the above.
    However, using energy to remove waste, is rather stupid, particularly when we can, in a win/win/win outcome, convert waste into energy, and nitrate and phosphorous rich, high carbon soil improver; plus recyclable water eminently suitable for very low water use, oil rich algae farming!
    Converting to cheaper than coal thorium, would not harm our economy, just the opposite!
    Would not cost many mining jobs; given, thorium has to also be mined.
    Nor would there be many jobs lost in the power industry, given centralised power still supports a number of jobs, regardless of the manner of making the steam that turns the turbines!
    Small pebble reactors are considerably safer than any coal-fired power stations, need no water and simply can’t melt down, due to clever design features of the fissile fuel, which is used as small marbles of fuel, encased in rock hard grapefruit sized carbon balls.
    I should imagine an additional coat of carbon based graphine, the strongest material ever made, would further enhance the safety factor.
    I would welcome a safer than coal fired, pebble reactor in my back yard.
    Small, local power provision, or the reticulated gas option, would reduce or remove commercially destructive, food spoiling blackouts, and the other hazards, like falling power lines that then start runaway wild fires, or fail you when you are pumping water, to fight one!
    Or indeed, the gold plating of said grid, which is now costing consumers, a proverbial arm and a leg!
    None of what is suggested here, in response to climate change, would cost jobs or harm the economy, just the opposite!
    Therefore, one is extremely puzzled why we and others are dragging the chain on essential reform?
    Unless you factor in the fossil fuel industry and the tremendous power they wield, particularly, it would seem, over politicians, with their post politics concerns, and or, retirement plans/strategies? Another coal mine or carbon broking firm, anyone?
    Alan B. Goulding.

    Comment by Alan B. Goulding — February 9, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  2. Alan, you should be in Parliament, perhaps as Resource Minister.

    Thorium is indeed a good bed, algal oils also.

    Maybe if we keep suggesting intelligent options someone will listen and vote intelligently.

    Comment by Ronda Jambe — February 9, 2013 @ 12:34 pm

  3. Ah yes Ronda, if someone would actually offer me that job, and say a safe senate seat; I could be very tempted.
    However, it’d be just for one term, given I’d likely be seen as an uncontrollable maverick, likely to cross the floor on any issue, that required one to stand on personal principles!
    Also, I’d be very worried about the apparent power of parliament, to corrupt some of the most seemingly decent folks, who went in as idealists and came out corrupt capitalists/multimillionaires?
    Finally, can only see that suggested outcome, happening in my dreams!
    Someone might listen? When Ronda? I’m not a young man!
    Cheers, and keep on keeping on.
    Alan B. Goulding.

    Comment by Alan B. Goulding — February 11, 2013 @ 12:31 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.