Tag Archives: clean energy

Barnaby Exposes Labor’s Renewable Energy Fraud

10 Nov

Media release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 9 November 2011:

Clean energy and the affect of yesterday’s vote

Prior to the passage of the carbon tax, the amount of renewable (or as the government likes to describe it ‘clean’) energy that would be generated by our nation by 2020 was 50 terawatt hours, according to a report for the government by SKM MMA.

Yesterday, the Senate passed over 1000 pages worth of law, titled the Clean Energy bills. On the passage of these clean energy bills, the amount of clean energy generated in Australia by 2020 will be 50 terawatt hours.

That’s right it is exactly the same amount. The clean energy bills will encourage exactly zero additional supply of electricity generation from clean energy sources.

So, now not only do you have the pleasure of being poorer, noting that it will have exactly zero affect on the climate, you will also have the pleasure of the clean energy bills producing absolutely no additional clean energy by 2020.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that a clean energy bill doesn’t actually produce any new clean energy. It’s like all the democracy that existed in the Democratic Republic of Germany prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, or exists now in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

As the consultants SKM MMA put it to the government in their report:

The level of renewable generation by 2020 is significantly higher only for the high price scenario, which suggests that in the absence of the LRET the carbon prices for the low price and core policy cases at that point ($13/t CO2e and $29.5/t CO2Figure 7e respectively) are not high enough to support widespread new entrant renewable generation.

(click here to download the SKM MMA extracts in pdf format)

Barnaby Joyce is an experienced accountant.

Meaning that, unlike World’s Greatest Finance Minister Wayne Swan, he can add up:

From Senator Joyce's office | click to enlarge

And as we have seen many times here on barnabyisright.com, when it comes to picking up on the important little details that reveal a fraud, Barnaby is the only one on the ball.

Oh yes, lest we forget to remind readers that in order to achieve this zero contribution of additional electricity from renewables, the government intends to set up Greens Senator Milne’s baby – the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

$10 billion of borrowed money.

To pour down the toilet of renewable energy “projects” that no sane investor will touch with a barge pole.

That’s why the government subsidy.

Because real business people (not rent-seekers) already know what Senator Joyce points out.

That “clean energy” cannot generate enough electricity to break even financially.

Unless propped up by the taxpayer.

“Clean” “renewable” energy is just another arm tentacle of the Great Global Warming Hoax.

A quasi-religious movement to enrich (1) bankers, (2) myriad rent-seekers, and (3) politicians (on retirement).

At the expense of (1) developed world citizens’ standard of living, and ultimately (2) national sovereignty (via government debt owed to foreign interests).



The Greens face widespread accusations of hypocrisy after demanding Australia abandon non-renewable energy sources, a day after voting for a carbon tax package underwritten by the continuing long-term use of gas.

The minor party, which helped design the carbon tax package, was unabashed last night, insisting Australia could be 100 per cent reliant on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy within a decade if only its politicians mustered the “political will” to do it.

A picture says it all, where words fail me –

TurbineGate – More #JAFA Fraud Posing As “Science”

27 Jul

On Monday evening, ABC’s Four Corners ran a story about wind farms and alleged adverse health effects.

I didn’t see it.

But I did see this story from Yahoo!7 referencing the Four Corners program.

And reading the last part immediately elevated my blood pressure (emphasis added):

Electrical engineer Graeme Hood from the University of Ballarat used audio equipment to check sound levels near the turbines.

He said although the turbines don’t sound very loud, they’re actually producing sound at a frequency too low to hear.

“The brain thinks it’s quiet, but the ears may be telling you something else or the body may be telling you something else, it’s much louder,” he said.

Anti-wind farm campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie said people within a 10km radius of turbines could be at risk of health problems such as elevated blood pressure and headaches.

But University of Adelaide professor Gary Wittert, who has conducted one of the first independent studies into wind farm health issues, denies there’s any link.

He used data from the the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to compare medical prescriptions of people living in areas with and without turbines.

His study involved 12,000 people living within a 10km radius around wind farms in South Australia and Victoria.

“There is no hint of any effect on a population basis for an increased use of sleeping pills or blood pressure or cardiovascular medications whatsoever,” he said.



So that’s how a scientific “study” into possible adverse health effects is conducted is it?

Just scan the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme database, for purchases of certain kinds of prescription medication. 

And if people in areas near wind farms have not been running off to the doctor-thence-chemist to drug themselves up with prescription medicine at a demonstrably higher average rate than in other (unnamed) populated areas, then you come out singing for your politically-correct Clean Energy Future funding supper by claiming your “independent study” finds that there are no adverse health effects from wind farms.

A couple of really basic questions, Professor.

1. Were the comparative sample regions (wind farm vs no wind farm) identical geographically, and more importantly, topographically?

After all, we are talking about possible health effects that, if present, it is only logical to first hypothesise will be health effects most likely caused by physical forces (ie, “sound” or compression waves).  And thus, the “lay of the land” (ie, the topography), % ground cover, vegetation type and coverage, variant resonant effects of differing soil types, air temperature and density, even the prevailing wind direction and strength relative to both the compression wave source and the population centre/s, are all critically relevant factors, and thus must all be as nearly identical as possible between the sample sets, in order for a so-called “study” based solely on prescription medication purchases to have even a shred of relevance or credibility.

2. Were the sample subjects (the people) 100% commensurable in terms of their socio-demographs? In all respects?!

Like … were you comparing, say, areas of predominantly hard-working tough-‘n-hardy rural folk living near said wind farms (and miles by car-only from the nearest doctor), with areas of predominantly obese TV-addicted couch potato welfare bogans living in non wind farm areas with half a dozen GP’s within a 10 minute taxpayer-subsidised bus ride?

In other words, were you comparing subjects who, in a socio-demographic context, are equally predisposed socially, psychologically, and financially, to run off to the doctor for prescription meds every time they feel a bit of a headache?  In a world where the standard societal “prescription” response to a headache – paracetamol and/or codeine – are readily available over-the-counter?

Here’s an idea, Professor Wittert.

Show us your raw data.

All of it.


Galileo, Copernicus, Nicolas of Cusa, Newton, Einstein, and Feynman must be turning in their graves.

Oh … and just one other, tiny little thing.

Could Professor Wittert’s pathetic, insult-to-intelligence foray into the world of bullshit “science” studies that just happen to come out in support of a Big Dollar, financially-important sub-area of the Great Global Warming Hoax, have anything at all to do with the fact that his last funding grant runs out this year?

From the University Of Adelaide’s website (emphasis added):

Professor Gary Wittert, MBBch, MD, FRACP

Current Funded Research

2003-2006    Florey Foundation: A study of health and ageing in north-west Adelaide men           $450,000
2003 – 2007  University of Adelaide: Healthy Aging Research Cluster  $300,000
2004-2006    ARC linkage Grant: Obesity, Health, Social Disadvantage and Environment in Australia:   Relationships and Policy Implications    $1.4 Million
2005-2006    Brailsford Roberston Grant (CSIRO & Uni.Adelaide Trust for the Centre for International Nutrition Collaborative Research): Dietary interventions for overweight/ obese women prior to pregnancy–safety & efficacy of low calorie & low carbohydrate diets.         $200,000
2006-2008    Premiers Science Research Council: Florey Adelaide Male Ageing Study                  $300,000
2007     Medical Benefits Foundation: Effects of obesity and rapid weight-loss induced using a modified very low calorie diet on cardiovascular risk factors, vascular and ventricular structure and function in obesity.  $146,955
2007-2008      NH&MRC equipment grant: Automated image analysis systems for the    high- throughput  immunohistochemical analysis of clinical and experimental samples.  $150,000
2007-2009    ARC Discovery: Declining mental efficiency, cognitive performance and individual differences in aged function  $450,000. 
2007-2011    NH&MRC Centre for Clinical Research in Nutritional Physiology  $2.0 Million

Oh crap!

My big funding grant for the centre for research into “nutritional physiology” runs out this year.

Better find a new intellectual wank area of “study”, wherein to hoist aloft my medically-credentialled #JAFA flag, and land myself some more funding for the next X years.

Hey … what about that Clean Energy Future racket?

Hasn’t the government proposed a $10 billion “picking winners” Clean Energy Finance fund to be administered by the Greens?

There’s got to be a way that a medical researcher can get some of that moolah.

Hmmmmm … thinking, thinking.

Ah ha!! Of course!

I’ll just do a totally BS, from-the-comfort-of-my-office, behind-a-computer, without-ever-actually-studying-or-physically-examining-any-of-the-comparative-sample-area-subjects-or-their-respective-environments “study” into the claims of adverse health affects from wind farms.

I’ll say – as a medical “expert” – that there is no evidence of any.

Hope that no one points out that my entire study conclusion rests on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

And the movers and shakers in the Clean Energy Future regime will all love me, and throw some of that lovely green money my way.


This “science” funding game is too easy.

Barnaby Brings The Elephant Into The Room

27 Jul

From the Australian Financial Review via Queensland Country Life (emphasis added):

Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce asked a question at a federal Senate inquiry during the week that went to the heart of the issues surrounding coal seam gas miners’ controversial use of land.

He asked representatives of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, including former Santos vice-president Rick Wilkinson: “You are giving landholders $10 million to $15 million a year [in compensation] while you are collecting $8.5 billion a year. You would have to say that’s a pretty good deal, right?”

Although there are countless protests about gas miners’ impact on prime farming land and water tables, Senator Joyce’s question brought the elephant into what was an already packed room, reports The Australian Financial Review .

In Australia, where miners have the right to walk on to a property and take out what they like from the ground, compensation packages are relatively frugal.

Texas land owners in the US control the subsurface and, as such, control much bigger cuts of the exploited resources.

Some critics hope for a moratorium on CSG projects until environmental effects are better understood.

But that is unlikely to happen where governments estimate the gas industry based in just one region such as Gladstone could generate 18,000 jobs and up to $850 million a year in royalties.

Cotton Australia’s Michael Murray revealed in the Senate inquiry that specific requests from the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Tony Burke, to protect the Condamine Alluvium were knocked back by the Queensland government.

He said that the requests by the minister were amendments of an environmental impact statement provided by a gas company seeking to start exploration in the area.

The reason why Australian farmers – and our precious agricultural land – are treated like dirt by the mining industry, is a complex and nuanced reality.

One which can be summarised easily.

And brutally.

That reality is this.

Our nation is a quarry.

A quarry to be exploited.

By the mega-wealthy international banking class.

And by the myriad of bottom-feeding parasites, who live very well indeed off the not-inconsiderable crumbs that fall from the table of the banksters’ globalised feeding frenzies.

As I always say, in a world where nothing is as it appears – Life is actually quite simple.

If you want to know what is really going on …

Follow The Money.

Carbon Tax Could “Bugger” The Country

15 Jul

From the Australian:

A leading businessman has warned that the Gillard government’s carbon policy could “bugger the country”, joining a chorus against the tax, as consumer sentiment sinks.

University of Queensland chancellor and former Suncorp chairman John Story said yesterday the government’s carbon package relied on a “huge leap of faith”, because the technology to manage a cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy did not yet exist.

His warning followed this week’s criticism of the carbon tax by media and mining mogul Kerry Stokes and fellow West Australians, resource heavyweights Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart.

Mr Stokes warned this week that Australia was at risk of imposing too many extra costs on industry and pricing foreign investors out of the market.

Mr Story said the carbon tax also presented a huge challenge for research institutions to develop clean energy technology.


We can see from today’s lead story, that the development of so-called “clean energy technology” really involves a massive transfer of wealth.

From so-called “rich” (ie, debt-deluged) nations, to “poor” (less debt-deluged) nations.

The UN itself has indicated that the cost to achieve the level of “clean energy technology” propounded, approaches $76 Trillion by their own (unbelievable) estimates:

UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy

Right now, indeed, it’s likely that the United Nations poses a far greater threat to Western Civilisation and the world’s economic future than Al Qaeda does. Have a glance at its latest report World Economic And Social Survey 2011 – and you’ll see what I mean.

The report argues that over the next 40 years our governments must spend an annual minimum of $1.9 trillion – that’s an eyewatering $76 trillion – steering the global economy onto the path of “green growth.”

But “Green growth” – as the report more or less acknowledges – is an oxymoron. That’s why, even though it was supervised by an alleged economist, Dutchman Rob Vos, the report is not at all ashamed to advocate limiting economic growth through rationing, punitive taxation and other forms of government intervention. Why? To combat “Climate Change”, of course.

Here’s the kicker:

“Hence, if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation in a timely manner. Proposals to put limits on economic growth can be viewed in this context.” (P.19)

And if shaving off $1.9 trillion from the world economy each year (that’s 3 per cent of the world gross product in 2010) results in further economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren, well what the hell. As the report primly tells us, none of us actually needs to earn more than $10,000 a year. Anything more is greedy:

“For example, taking life expectancy as an objective measure of the quality of life, it can be seen that life expectancy does not increase much beyond a per capita income of about $10,000. Similarly…cross-country evidence suggests that there are no significant additional gains in human development (as measured by the human development index) beyond the energy-use level of about 110 gigajoules (GJ) (or two tons of oil equivalent (toe) per capita.”

Are they seriously suggesting that developed economies should ration their people’s energy use? They surely are:

“The Survey estimates that the emissions cap would be equivalent to primary energy consumer consumption of 70 gigajoules per capita per year, which means that the average European would have to cut his or her energy consumption by about half and the average resident of the US by about three quarters.”

So, instead of being able to enjoy a hot shower every day all you Americans, you’ll now confine your warm ablutions to weekends only. Same goes for air-con in summer. And heating in winter. Welcome to the New Green World Order.

%d bloggers like this: