THE LORD MONCKTON FOUNDATION
See our Charter and Vision (HERE). With your help, encouragement and input, we will bring many projects to fruition and together with you and others, we will make a positive difference in Education, Science, Public Policy and the Media. Our aim is to reverse the trend into a new Authoritarian Dark Age by establishing the Age of Enlightenment 2.0.
We have only recently become a registered Charitable Institution to support the work of Lord Monckton in better educating the public on matters of great importance to our democratic traditions, science based civilisation and civil way of life.
Introducing the global warming speedometer
A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.
The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.
RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.
Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports
IPCC (2007, 2013) are too recent to allow reliable comparison of their predictions against reality.
IPCC (2001), on page 8, predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by 0.75 [0.4, 1.1] C°, equivalent to 2.1 [1.1, 3.1] C°/century. This predicted interval is 4.5 [2.3, 6.6] times observed warming since January 2001.
IPCC (1995), at fig. 6.13, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, predicted a medium-term warming rate a little below 0.4 C° over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 C°/century, or 3.8 times observed warming since January 2001.
IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century. This predicted interval is 6.0 [4.0, 8.9] times observed warming since January 2001.
Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.
The visible discrepancy between wild predictions and harmless reality since January 2001 demonstrates that the major climate models on which governments have relied in setting their mitigation policies are unfit for their purpose. Removing the exaggerations inbuilt into the models eradicates the supposed climate problem.
The real-world evidence shows that global warming mitigation policies are based on predictions now exposed as having been flagrantly and baselessly exaggerated.
All global-warming mitigation policies should be forthwith abandoned and their heavy cost returned at once to taxpayers by way of cuts in energy taxes and charges.
Industries such as coal mining and generation should be fully compensated for the needless loss and damage that ill-considered government policies inflicted on them.
Subsidies for global warming research should be ended and IPCC dissolved.
Complaint of BBC prejudice in covering of climate change and warning of potential judicial review
For many years now, publicly funded (tax-payer funded) broadcasters around the world have tended to ‘follow the party line’ in terms of favouring big government and big bureaucracy solutions to those problems defined by big government and big bureaucracy as demanding solutions.
As the BBC is one of the most respected public broadcasters on the planet, the BBC tends to set the tone of how to create and deal with the big government and big bureaucracy in terms of addressing the symbiotic relationships between funding and the politically correct ‘party line’.
For this reason it is most essential that the role of the fourth estate in terms of questioning authority in general and particular, the role of the BBC’s big government and big bureaucracy’s politically correct party line on global warming. The BBC has not met its chartered requirements and the following discussion and copy of the Complaint of BBC prejudice in covering of climate change and warning of potential judicial review a document Lord Christopher Monckton had some considerable influence in constructing and supporting, is attached.
It is likely those who have been attracted to work in their public broadcaster share the views of their fellow broadcasters, being the same view of similarly anointed big government and big bureaucracy ‘politically correct’ party lines, even to the point of wilful blindness to the ‘bubble-like’ elitist and distant and increasingly irrelevant nature of this view - to the people living and working in the real world.
Below you will find the covering letter of complaint to the BBC along with links to the full document of complaint.
38 Swains Lane
London N6 6QR.
T: 020 7284 4217
22nd April, 2016.
The Director General
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ.
Dear Director General,
Complaint of BBC prejudice in covering of climate change
and warning of potential judicial review
We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.
We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation - is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.
Accordingly, we make the following recommendations to ensure that in future the BBC adheres to its obligation of impartiality and of accuracy in its climate-change coverage –
Ø To ensure balance, and to give senior executives at the BBC a proper understanding of the sceptical viewpoint, the Trust should arrange for Lord Monckton to co-ordinate a team of leading sceptical scientists and economists to give a day-long, high-level briefing for senior BBC executives in broadly the same job descriptions as those who attended the secret briefing in 2006. This meeting is a minimum requirement to restore even-handedness at the BBC on the climate issue by ensuring that all relevant senior BBC personnel are obliged, whether they like it or not, to respect the principle of natural justice as well as the BBC’s obligation of impartiality by hearing the other side of the case.
Ø The Trust should circulate to all executives and programme-makers in the field, and to all news and current affairs personnel, a document to be prepared by us in consultation with leading scientists that will summarize in a dozen pages the sceptical side of the case. This is a minimum requirement to ensure that the BBC and all its senior personnel are made aware of the considerable body of scientific evidence, data and papers that cast doubt upon its chosen position
in the climate debate, so that the BBC can find its way easily to these sources in future.
Ø Prominent “sceptical” journalists and climate scientists from the UK and US should be invited to put together a series of TV programmes giving the other side of the story on the climate. The programmes should be broadcast on the BBC during prime time. This series is a minimum requirement if balance is to be restored to the BBC’s climate-science coverage as the law requires.
Ø The Trust should require that the section on “Consensus” in the impartiality topic under the BBC's Guidelines should be rewritten or deleted. The BBC should in future be obliged to adhere strictly to its editorial standards, particularly the obligation of impartiality, and should not be permitted to avoid doing so by distorting the usual meaning of language by “calibrating” its supposed impartiality. The BBC should be required to reflect all opinions, including those with which it disagrees, and to give a right of reply to sceptical scientists. Journalists’ own personal opinions should not be permitted to colour their reportage. This is a necessary minimum step to ensure that neither the Trust nor the BBC can in future evade the obligation of impartiality by rewriting the Guidelines to suit their political prejudices.
Ø The BBC should employ at least one climate sceptic in a senior journalistic role. David Bellamy, for instance, was taken off the air after he let slip that he was querying the extent of Man’s influence on climate. The deliberate exclusion by the BBC of all sceptics from its environment and climate reporting team is unacceptable.
Ø Messrs. Renouf, Harrabin, Shukman and Heap should be reassigned from climate programmes on grounds of prejudice; and the BBC should employ scientists who know something of the scientific method, have some knowledge of climate science and are not susceptible to vested interests.
Ø The BBC should adopt a nuanced, mature, unprejudiced, non-alarmist approach to the climate question. It should accept that there is a growing body of research in the scientific literature that questions the extent of man's likely future influence on climate, that there is near-unanimity in the economic journals that it would be cheaper to adapt to global warming later than to attempt to mitigate it now; and that, particularly on climate sensitivity, opinion in the literature is far less one-sided than the BBC has thus far let on.
Ø The BBC should abide by the Singapore Statement on Scientific Integrity in selecting scientists to appear on programmes.
Ø The BBC should eschew basing its stories on predictions whose medium-term versions have already proven to be wild exaggerations. Instead, it should base its stories on what is actually happening in the climate.
Ø The Trust should forbid the BBC to ascribe individual extreme-weather events to manmade global warming, and should forbid it to allow scientists to make such allegations, unless scientists willing to support the IPCC’s position that individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming are also interviewed.
Ø The Trust should require the BBC to disclose in each programme about the climate its own and its journalists’ financial or other conflicts of interest, such as the fraction of the journalistic and editorial pension funds that are invested in “green” energy.
Ø The BBC's website should contain regular updates on the actual climate data – e.g. practically no global warming over the past decade or two; Antarctic ice extent at or near its satellite-era maximum for many recent years; hurricane activity at or near a satellite-era low; land
area under drought declining for 30 years.
Ø The BBC should be required to provide meaningful rights of reply to well qualified persons who dissent from the agenda it now promotes.
Ø The BBC should forthwith take active steps to give no further ground for the perception that it is institutionally wedded to manmade climate change as though it were canonical truth.
Our complaint should not have had to be made at all. It is an indication of the depth to which the BBC and the Trust have sunk that we have had to make it, and to put forward recommendations to ensure that the BBC’s bias on climate is ended.
The BBC has failed so far to respond to Henney’s complaint dated 15/2/2016 (and is just repeating the flawed programme by Attenborough in Australia). We should be grateful if the BBC would reply within 60 working days, failing which the matter will pass to the Trust for determination. To comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, we make it clear at the outset that unless our complaint is responded to in what we regard as a satisfactory and timely fashion, we may have to apply for judicial review of either the BBC or the Trust or both. However, we should rather resolve this matter without recourse to the courts. We hope, therefore, that the BBC and the Trust will take our complaint seriously and give us a reasonably prompt, full and considered reply. We would be pleased to discuss the matters with you.
Piers Corbyn, firstname.lastname@example.org
Richard Courtney, RichardSCourtney@aol.com
David T C Davies MP, email@example.com
Philip Foster, firstname.lastname@example.org
Roger Helmer MEP, email@example.com
Alex Henney, firstname.lastname@example.org
Paul Homewood, email@example.com
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, firstname.lastname@example.org
John Whitfield, email@example.com
Rupert Wyndham, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Go here to see the full document of complaint
Professor Bob Carter has passed away too soon to see the scientific method restored as the basis of science; and reason again prevail over emotion in decision making.
"We will remember him. He was our clearest voice of truth."
Joanne Nova has paid a wonderful tribute to Bob,
"One of the best things about being a skeptic are the people I’ve got to know, and Bob Carter was one of the best of them, sadly taken far too soon. He was outstanding, a true gem, a good soul, and an implacably rational thinker. A softly spoken man of conscience and good humour.
So it is dreadful news that he suffered a heart attack last week in Townsville. For the last few days I have been hoping that he would return to us, but alas, tonight he passed away peacefully, surrounded by family.
We shall miss you Bob.
Professor Bob Carter (74) has been a key figure in the Global Warming debate, doing exactly what good professors ought to do — challenging paradigms, speaking internationally, writing books, newspaper articles, and being invited to give special briefings with Ministers in Parliament. He started work at James Cook University in 1981, served as Head of the Geology Department until 1998, and sometime after that he retired. Since then he’d been an honorary Adjunct Professor.
He was a man who followed the scientific path, no matter where it took him, and even if it cost him, career-wise, every last bell and whistle that the industry of science bestowed, right down to his very email address. After decades of excellent work, he continued on as an emeritus professor, speaking out in a calm and good natured way against poor reasoning and bad science. But the high road is the hard road and the university management tired of dealing with the awkward questions and the flack that comes with speaking truths that upset the gravy train. First James Cook University (JCU) took away his office, then they took his title. In protest at that, another professor hired Bob immediately for an hour a week so Bob could continue supervising students and keep his library access. But that was blocked as well, even the library pass and his email account were taken away, though they cost the University almost nothing.
It says a lot about the man that, despite the obstacles, he didn’t seem bitter and rarely complained. He dealt with it all with calm equanimity. Somehow he didn’t carry the treatment as excess baggage......"
See the rest of Jo's tribute at her blog.
Using Bob's courage and good grace and quest for truth through science as inspiration, let us all work to win back science and the fruits of the enlightenment for humanity before we to leave this mortal coil.
Let us create and implement ways and means to roll back the forces of unreason and misanthropy.
Introducing the Cool Futures Hedge Fund
Friends of the Foundation, including some board members, concerned about the lack of strategy, narrative and financial resources available for the development of evidence based public policy, proper due diligence, empirical science, rational thought, democracy, media, education and free market economies, have been working for years to address these concerns.
With an emphasis on doing a proper due diligence on the science, economics and finance of global warming we have spent the last year or so fine tuning and supporting the creation of a Cayman Islands based hedge fund called the Cool Futures Hedge Fund.
"The Cool Futures Hedge Fund offers the greatest revenge of all that could be exacted upon global warming alarmists would be to make more money from the truth than they have out of lies". A line provided by one of our more colourful friends when referring to the Cool Futures Hedge Fund.
From the Cool Futures Hedge Fund website
We monitor the latest developments in the science, economics and finance of global warming [the Knowledge] and take positions accordingly using the tools of a hedge fund.
We are a thematic hedge fund. Our Alpha is also our unique selling proposition. The iterative investment question we ask is,
“What and how should I invest, if I knew the timing (soon), magnitude (significant) and sign (cooling) of the next major climate shift?.....”
“By fixing the architecture of the flawed climate models, while keeping the physics, future warming due to carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide. Given this and that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming paradigm with all of its huge distortions of science, economics and finance has begun to collapse; and that cooling follows warming as night follows day, how should I should hedge my bets?” No other fund is doing this. Yet there are vast sums in play, seemingly with no due diligence on the Knowledge done by anyone but us.
The Cool Futures Hedge Fund is a new small private fund incorporated in the Cayman Islands with plans to grow big, with your help.
It’s a rare historical moment ripe for the plucking.
Any savvy investor can recognize the marketing hype: the bizarre idea that complex, unverified climate models have “95% certainty” about weather 100 years from now. Each year is always our “last chance to save the planet”. Carbon dioxide apparently causes global warming (except the warming hasn’t happened), but it also causes more snow, less snow, droughts and floods, storms, extinctions, less ice in the Arctic but somehow more ice in the Antarctic. It apparently causes wars, terrorism, smaller babies and reckless fish too. Because the evidence is so weak, the emotional screws are turned – if you doubt, you are not just “wrong”, but a selfish, evil, backward “denier”.
Over $100 billion has been spent on one-sided funding in scientific research alone, with almost nothing spent on auditing, due diligence, or alternate theories. The monopolistic funding that seeks to find a crisis has promoted an immature science to the point of where it claims improbably to be as “certain as gravity”. The debate that never happened is already over. Rarely in history have so many people been taken in by a group claiming to control the weather.
Smart investors know that monopolies are bad in business, and also in science. Free markets and competition are powerful tools, which is precisely why we need to start with a free market in the science research in order to find the truth. Governments show no sign of funding counter research or a “blue team” to challenge and audit the “red team”. Instead this research is largely self-funded or supported by the private market.
Smart investors also recognize that the so-called “free market” in carbon trading is anything but – both supply and demand are set by bureaucrats. Trading is not voluntary (because no one wants a “carbon credit”) but forced by legislation. It’s a fake free market.
Monopolistic funding and a lack of competition has predictably created a vast array of misallocated investments and the miscalculation of asset values. Cool futures plans to exploit that opportunity. In order to stay ahead of the pack, we must also fund the counter research to improve predictions.
Be sceptical of course and do your due diligence, but through crowd funding you can now be part of a hedge fund management company extracting value from the obvious exaggeration and lack of auditing in climate research.
Hedge Funds refer to high level mathematicians and hard scientists as 'rocket scientists'. This class of expert is rarely involved in climate research (which is done by oceanographers, geographers, climatologists etc). The Cool Futures Hedge Fund relies on the evidence produced by their hard maths 'rocket scientist' team of analysts. The same maths and physics that makes mobile phones and GPSs operate is used to predict the climate.
The Cool Futures Hedge Management team is seeking to crowd source seed funds for their global launch.
Surveys show that Western populations are becoming more skeptical and already more than half do not agree with the IPCC claims:
· 54% of Australians don’t agree that “humans are largely causing it” (CSIRO)
· 63% of British people were skeptical that storms and floods are “probably man-made”. (ComRes / ITV)
· 57% in US Reuters-IPSOS polls don’t think UN scientists can “speak with authority” on the climate.
· 31% in a Bloomberg National US poll agree “that climate change is a total hoax”.
· Only 48% of meteorologists agree with the IPCC claims.
· Only 43% of climate scientists agree we are “95% certain” that CO2 is the dominant driver.
The number of people who believe that climate change is largely natural is increasing, despite the glowing support for the IPCC’s unaudited reports in many mainstream media outlets.
The Cool Futures Hedge Fund not only aims to provide an income stream for investors, but also to provide funds to advance climate research and to assist foundations and blogs focussed on the concerns of this Foundation. Its existence and success will help restore western Age of Enlightenment science and civilization; prosperity and wealth; freedom and vision.
The people of the world need prosperity, freedom and a safe place to call home, not expensive wind and solar generated electricity, carbon taxes, and Big Government - to survive whatever mother nature or human nature throws at us.
See the Cool Futures Funds Management website
For a Net Assessment of the relative positions of the red team and the blue team see HERE
We have a new paradigm in climate science emerging.
Tell your friends - in fact tell everybody!
From Jo Nova's blog some excerpts from a post by Dr David Evans (see link below)
I’m a professional modeler. The ever-inquisitive Lord Christopher Monckton has been plaguing me for years with questions about the basic climate model, ever since I showed an interest when we met in Bali in 2007. But because contradiction of the model is a necessary starting point for the notch-delay solar theory, I investigated it with renewed determination in 2013.
Some may recall that the starting point for the notch-delay theory we presented in June 2014 was to answer the question: “If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on carbon dioxide, what solar model would account for it?” When launching that theory, I noted:
“We also clear up a few theoretical befuddlements about the influence of CO2 that may have caused warmists to overestimate the potency of rising CO2. The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail.”
At the time, no one asked me where I got those figures from…
It’s taken a while to sort out the problems of the conventional model, neatly and simply. ["A while" means months of toil tracing through papers, following dead ends, to get back to the points that matter. - Jo] But now we are ready, finally.......
1. Introducing a Series of Blog Posts on Climate Science
Dr David Evans, 22 September 2015. Project home page.
Breaking the Intellectual Standoff
There is an intellectual standoff in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.
How can well-accepted physics produce the wrong answer? We mapped out the architecture of their climate models and discovered that while the physics appears to be correct, the climate scientists applied it wrongly. Most of the projected warming comes from two specific mistakes.
Given all the empirical evidence against the carbon dioxide theory, there had to be problems in the basic sensitivity calculation. Now we’ve found them.
Series of Blog Posts
We are going to explain this and more in a series of blog posts. To build a better model, we had to understand the conventional basic climate model, the core model used to compute the high sensitivity to carbon dioxide. We unpack it, show the errors, then fix it. We calculate the sensitivity to carbon dioxide using this alternative model — which shows that the sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much lower.
If carbon dioxide didn’t cause much of the recent global warming, what did? The series continues with the revamped notch-delay solar theory (the previous problem concerning causality of notch filters has been resolved). This finds evidence that albedo modulation involving the Sun is the likely cause of global warming, and produces a falsifiable prediction for the climate of the next decade.
In its complete form this work has evolved into two scientific papers, one about the modelling and mathematical errors in the conventional basic climate model and fixing them (carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit), and another for the revamped notch-delay solar theory (it’s the Sun). Both are currently undergoing peer review. These posts are useful in airing the ideas for comments, and testing the papers for errors.
See the full post HERE.........."
The Talent - a new asset backed currency
In recent times, following a number of interviews with Lord Monckton, we have had significant feedback and urgent requests for more information on Lord Monckton's new international asset based currency proposal.
Christopher Monckton has prepared a brief document highlighting the benefits and progress of his proposal for those interested, which commences as follows:
The Talent is an ingenious innovation in personal, corporate, public and international finance. Thanks to the Talent, the reign of the ever-depreciating fiat currency – sterling, the dollar, the euro and other paper currencies not backed by real assets – is at last over.
One Talent is one unit share in the Talent Fund, a professionally-managed investment fund administered by experienced fund managers. But there is one important difference: you can use your Talents for your day-to-day transactions. You can invest, save and spend using the same simple, secure account. As the Fund grows, the value of your Talents grows with it.
To read the full document please click HERE
Another me-too climate statement by a non-climate body
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Several concerned senior members of the medical profession in Australia have contacted the Lord Monckton Foundation to express their disappointment at an opinion survey on climate change circulated by the Association’s President, who proposes to promulgate what would be yet another me-too “Position Statement on Climate Change”.
Though, as one doctor has pointed out, it is welcome that before the Association commits itself to any position statement it is first consulting its members [which is more than can be said for most scientific societies that have issued “me-too” statements on climate change], members are dismayed that they are being consulted on a subject that is wholly beyond the scientific competence or remit of the medical profession.
An eminent specialist at a tertiary training institution put it thus: “I have no expert knowledge in the sciences associated with climate, meteorology etc. I very much doubt if many members of the AMA have the relevant knowledge to come out in support or protest of any particular climate stance … any noise generated by the AMA carries no more weight than any other trade grouping.”
See the response to each of the survey questions if each member of the AMA was to cite the scientific literature HERE
Thanks to Michael Darby for bringing this to the Foundation's attention.
"Australians of goodwill deeply appreciate (Lord Monckton's) resolute defence of civilisation!
Here are the two most recent Grant Goldman Editorials which may be helpful.
These go to air around 7.10am each weekday over 2SM Sydney and the Super Radio Network.
Grant's program is 5am to 9am. The website is HERE
Religious Leaders on Climate Change Thursday 28 May 2015
In July 1937 when the Marco Polo Bridge incident launched Japan’s aggression against China, that was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against Japan. In March 1939 the German occupation of Czechoslovakia was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Nazis. In November 1956 Soviet troops overrunning Hungary was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the USSR. In October 2013 the massacre of Syriac Orthodox Christians and destruction of 14 churches in Sadad in Syria was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Jihadis responsible.
The likelihood that there are more slaves in the world today than at any previous time in human history is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the slave trade. Three terrible genocides were perpetrated in the twentieth century. By the Turks against Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians in 1915, by the Soviets against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933, and of course by the Nazis against the Jews from 1939 to 1945. None of these horrible events prompted Australian religious leaders to act with one voice. Why am I telling you all this?
So what is important enough for Australian religious leaders purporting to represent Anglicans, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews, to get together and write to the Government and the Opposition demanding action? Well, a person named Thea Ormerod representing the numerically insignificant outfit called Australian Religious Response to Climate Change drafted a letter for them all to sign, calling for a 40% cut in the level of carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the year 2025, and an 80% cut by 2030. We are talking here about the comprehensive economic destruction of Australia with mass unemployment, grinding poverty, widespread hunger and disease, shocking child mortality and truncated lifespans for everybody who is not amongst the elite.
Thea Ormerod is likely related to Neil Ormerod, who is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University. Oh yes, this is the educational institution which a month ago awarded two scholarships, each for full tuition fees for four years, to honour executed drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. This leads me to observe that the worthy goal of getting Australia to lead a worldwide campaign to abolish capital punishment is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action. But strong action against carbon dioxide is what they want.
The Church of England otherwise known these days as Anglicans has been pushing the anti-energy barrow for some time. They actually ran a Global Divestment Day on the fourteenth of February this year. It attracted little attention because St Valentine’s Day is the day when most people are busy chatting each other up and eating chocolate. I’ll have more to say about the Church of England in coming days.
But in the meantime, I’d like you to tell me and the listeners to our thirty-six radio stations what issues do you want your Church to concentrate on. World peace? Ending poverty? Defeating disease? Combatting Crime? Protecting minorities? Saving children from sexual abuse? Helping the homeless? Maybe, just maybe, even campaigning against sin? What about preaching forgiveness? That is what churches used to do. Or do you want your church to act like basically a subsidiary of the Greens?
It’s your Church, and it’s your money that pays the bills. If the Churches do forget that, then people will get baptised, married and buried online. It’s cheaper.
The Church of England and Divestment Friday 29 May 2015
As we discussed yesterday the Church of England is part of a push to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the draconian figure of 80% in the next fifteen years, which would make Australia unable to feed, house and clothe Australians. In Britain, North America and Australia the Church of England has declared war on coal, through a combination of divestment programs and propaganda from the pulpit.
Time for some facts about coal. The gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch tells us that since the early 1800s life expectancy in Europe has doubled. The single greatest factor in the longevity revolution has been coal. Beginning in the eighteenth century and accelerating into the nineteenth century, coal made possible stunning increases in productivity. Coal saved from destruction the forests of Britain which by the mid eighteenth century were rapidly disappearing. Coal dramatically reduced pollution caused by cooking and heating with wood and animal dung. Coal permitted large scale smelting of metals. Coal made possible modern medical science and modern agriculture. Coal opened the way to commerce and freedom of movement on a scale never before imagined.
Thanks to coal, for the very first time ordinary workers who were not members of the aristocracy nor of the clergy had leisure time. Life was still tough, but thanks to coal life rapidly improved. Instead of being permanently enslaved to tasks like collecting wood to heat and to cook, women had the opportunity to learn to read and become educated or musical or artistic or political or charitable as they wished.
Coal made possible the growth of democratic institutions and, vitally important, the abolition of slavery. Nineteenth century Britain saw the flowering of culture with bands, orchestras, choirs, drama societies, literary societies, trade unions, and, of course, the flowering of the Church of England. I’ll mention some of the great hymnists of the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century. In chronological order:
John Wesley (1703-1791)
Edward Perronet (1726-1792)
William Cowper 1731-1800
John Newton (1725-1807),
Reginald Heiber (1783-1826
Joseph M. Scriven (1819-1886)
Matthew Bridges (1800-1894)
Carl Gustav Boberg (1859-1940)
Thanks to coal, hymn books could be printed cheaply and thanks to coal there were trees left in the land to make the paper.
In Britain by 1860 around 400,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 175 tonnes of coal in a year for an annual total of seventy million tonnes of coal. In 1913 around 1,100,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 264 tonnes of coal in a year for a total of 290 million tonnes. This great increase in coal production coincided with wonderful progress in every aspect of society. People lived longer, ate better and their purchasing power increased year by year.
As the twentieth century dawned, coal was already popularising the wonderful blessing of electricity. The former major disadvantage of coal-fired power – sulphur dioxide emissions – was overcome with fluidised bed combustion using limestone, and coal has continued as the world mainstay of electrical power.
Tragically, 1.3 billion people – eighteen percent of the world’s population – have no access to electricity and so are deprived of all the wonderful things we take for granted. Expansion of coal production is vital as part of the energy mix necessary to offer the poor and disadvantaged of the world an escape route from poverty, misery and short life spans.
By declaring war on coal, people who purport to represent the Church of England are committing a terrible crime against the world’s poorest people.
My suggestion to the people purporting to lead the Church of England is re-read the Parable of the Talents. It’s still there in Matthew Chapter 25, verses 14 to 30.
Climate of Freedom: Press Release
Source: Indiegogo – http://igg.me/at/climateoffreedom
Climate of Freedom – Be a part of the only change that truly needs to happen.
Climate change has been one of the most controversial topics over the last two decades. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth told us that we were destroying our world with catastrophic manmade climate change. The documentary set records and won awards, including a Nobel Prize for Gore. Since the film’s production, Gore has continued his mantra of doom.
Yet, in spite of all the noise, there still hasn’t been any global warming. Could there be an ulterior motive for the incessant cries that the world as we know it will quite literally burn up? What if someone were to embark upon a Pilgrimage of Truth Against the Profiteers of Doom?
Climate of Freedom is an upcoming feature length documentary film set for theatrical release in September 2015. Starring world renowned Climate Change expert Lord Christopher Monckton, the film sheds light on the intentions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and shows how they plan to use false science and fear mongering to create a de facto world government. Lord Monckton will combine interviews with top scientific experts, with humor, facts, and a bit of fun to show the truth about Global Warming and the UN’s desire to subjugate the West to its tyranny.
Go HERE for full Press Release
Global Temperature Update
Global Warming has stopped?
Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 3 months
In response to a reader from Ireland, Lord Monckton prepared the following article which addressed questions on the response of the Pope and the Church to the Catastrophic Climate Change meme and what can be done about this response. Excerpts from this article appear below. For the full article including RSS Global Temperature Chart, see HERE. And for the paper referred to, published in in the first edition of the relaunched Science Bulletin, see HERE.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The RSS global satellite dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months. The actual warming since the United Nations’ climate panel first reported in 1990, compared to the average of all five major global temperature datasets, was half what it had predicted in that year with what it called “substantial confidence.”
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s upper-ocean heat content chart, when converted back to the ocean temperature change from which NOAA calculated it, shows ocean warming over the past decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.5 C⁰/century. Not exactly a climate crisis.
Global sea-ice extent reached a satellite-era maximum late in 2014 – not that most mainstream news media reported that fact. Land area under drought has declined for 30 years. Patterns of flooding, of tropical cyclones and of extra-tropical storminess show little change. Sea level is barely rising: indeed, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites, the most precise method of measurement, actually showed sea level falling from 2003-2009.
The new, simple climate model – which a physics undergrad can run on nothing more complex than a pocket calculator – has taken the world of climate science by storm. Of the seven major science papers in the first edition of the relaunched Science Bulletin, the paper has received 3500 downloads from the journal’s website – an unusually high number for a scientific paper.
Comments about the paper are appearing all over the internet. A copy is to be sent to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, where an encyclical on climate change is being prepared on behalf of the Pope.
Lord Monckton, a Knight of Malta, a former Editor of the UK Catholic newspaper The Universe, and an expert reviewer for the UN’s Fifth Assessment Report on the climate in 2013, said: "It is vital that the Pope should not lead the Church into another embarrassing Galileo moment by jumping on to the climate-change bandwagon just as the scientific wheels are falling off. Our paper marks the end of the climate scare."
Global Temperature Update
Onward marches the Great Pause
Global temperature update: the Pause is now 18 years 2 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Since October 1996 there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature plot pushes up the period without any global warming from 18 years 1 month to 18 years 2 months (indeed, very nearly 18 years 3 months). Will this devastating chart be displayed anywhere at the Lima conference? Don’t bet on it.
Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 2 months since October 1996.
The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.
What will the chart look like this time next year, at the beginning of the Paris world-government conference, at which the Treaty of Copenhagen will be dusted off and nodded through by the scientifically illiterate national negotiating delegates of almost 200 nations, ending the freedom and democracy of the West and putting absolute economic and political power in the hands of the grim secretariat of the UN climate convention?
When the November 2015 RSS data are available, how many years and months of zero global warming will have occurred? Enter our friendly competition by putting your best estimate in comments. For guidance, at the December 2012 Doha conference I was banned from UN climate yadayadathons for life for the grave sin of telling the truth that there had been no global warming for 16 years. And an el Nino of unknown magnitude is expected during the boreal winter, followed by a compensating la Nina.
See HERE for the full article by Lord Monckton
Opinion - Chris Dawson
The pieces of the puzzle may be coming together faster than we think; at Lima not Paris.
Under encouragement from US president Obama, the UN IPCC is set to steal a little more sovereignty, ‘in a little bit pregnant - kind of way’, at Lima on the way to Paris.
Obama will put up a draft 'Agreement' rather than a 'Treaty' at Lima which will enable him to ‘blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges’ and thus side-step US Congress by signing a ‘binding’ Agreement (hybrid).
The UN bureaucrats have understood Obama’s ‘problem’ with ‘democracy’ and assisted him in finding a creative way around his ‘problem’ with Congress. To get a global agreement up, the UN must have the US locked in.
This Agreement will reflect the terms of his US China Climate Agreement and all countries including Australia will be under huge pressure to sign, perhaps even as early as now, in Lima.
By springing the whole thing at Lima, the UN bureaucrats will catch us all off guard, being focussed as we are on Paris. The UN bureaucrats and fellow travellers are afraid the actual lack of global warming for 18 years and the ‘hottest year ever’ contradiction, can’t hold out until Paris. In their view, everything will be lost, their power and wealth, if they don’t get it up now.
Your country, and for me Australia, should only ever sign a UN Climate agreement where a sensible 'get out clause' is included.
This 'get out clause' should address the pretext of any Climate Agreement such that should carbon dioxide be found innocent and/or CAGW falsified and or/Global Cooling becomes obvious, we can pull out of the Agreement without penalty.
In other words, if what we have is predominantly natural climate change, we don't have to surrender any of our sovereignty and energy and land and mining and water policies, along with immigration, wealth and private property to unaccountable and remote UN bureaucrats. Claw back provisions.
The unelected, unaccountable, EU authoritarian bureaucrats ‘tricked’ each of the EU countries into signing away their sovereignty and now a growing number of European citizens realize they have lost their democratic rights to determine energy, land, mining, water, banking, immigration, wealth and private property policies, to mention just a few.
Please ensure your politicians are confronted with this scenario and invite them to avoid being ‘tricked’.
Stop your government signing away more sovereignty on the pretext of saving the planet unless at the very least, it has an iron clad ‘get out clause’ as above.
Global Temperature Update
It’s official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly for September 2014 is in, and the Great Pause is now two months longer than it was last month. Would this year’s el Niño bite soon enough to stop the psychologically-significant 18-year threshold from being crossed? The official answer is No.
Globally, September was scarcely warmer than August, which was itself some distance below the 18-year trend-line. Therefore, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.
Dr Benny Peiser, our good friend at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, had anticipated the official crossing of the 18-year threshold by a day or two with an interesting note circulated to supporters on the ever-lengthening period without any global warming, and featuring our 17-years-11-months graph from last month.
The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to September 2014, showing no trend for 18 years 1 month.
See full discussion HERE
The case for the CAGW hypothesis has only failed models and a so called 'consensus' of 'settled science' going for it. There is no empirical evidence, only models outputs in support of the CAGW hypothesis and now it is clear that the 97% of 'Climate Scientists' were not in support of the CAGW hypothesis as the image below, derived from Legates et el. (2013) demonstrates.
Announcement - Loyal Visit to Australia
Christopher Walter Monckton, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; Lord Monckton for short; Christopher to his friends all over the world, has landed in Australia for a Loyal Visit.
Lord Monckton is in Australia for a low key (in terms of public presentations) visit, meeting up for private functions, to meet some politicians and for some party faithful political rallies and to catch up with friends across NSW, VIC, SA & QLD. He hopes to bring people up to date on how Australia is now viewed around the world following the repeal of the Carbon Tax.
In addition he wants to warn Australians of the UN plans in Paris in 2015 (or before) for a Global Bureaucracy Managed Climate Agreement. This plan for Paris will amount to a world government along the lines of the unelected, unaccountable EU Commissars who run Europe, where Australia and other signatories will irreversibly sign away some key elements of their nation's sovereignty on the pretext of saving the planet from global warming which stopped some 18 years ago.
Watch this space for public presentation details.
See HERE for Alan Jones interview Sept 10th 2014
See HERE for Andrew Bolt and Steve Price interview Sept 9th 2014
Global Temperature Update
No global warming for 17 years 11 months …
… or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.
Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a "climate crisis" caused by our past and present sins of emission.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.
This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
See full report HERE
Global Temperature Update
Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months
El Niño has not yet shortened the Great Pause
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Remarkably, the el Niño warming of this year has not yet shortened the Great Pause, which, like last month, stands at 17 years 10 months with no global warming at all.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for about half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 10 months, or 214 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend.
Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
For the full report from Lord Monckton, see HERE
History & Science in the Making
Over at the JoNova Blog HERE, Dr David Evans is creating History by doing science the way it is supposed to be done.
You will appreciate that in the current politically correct ‘climate’, no empirical science indicating a major cause other than CO2 for climate change will be published in any climate journal. This will change soon, but only after we win the argument.
So the new Evans Solar Based Climate Theory is being published as science was traditionally done prior to WW2.
Three things that make this theory stand out:
1. It’s quantifiable, with a model that successfully hindcasts and predicts. Not just a concept with hand-waving or a rough one-off computation.
2. It’s got physical interpretations for all the parts. So this is a physical model, not just curve fitting or an unexplained correlation.
3. It comes with a prediction and a falsifiability condition. As Bob Carter says, '..science is about testable hypotheses'.
So David is releasing a series of short background papers, prior to very soon releasing the full paper on his Theory.
Please see the links below for each of these background papers released to date:
Nineth The Model HERE
"David Evans’ ground-breaking work is a devastating new approach to the climate question. I have been lucky enough to observe the development of this project, and am full of admiration for both Jo and David for their dedication to carrying out a breathtaking research project with no financial reward, simply because it so desperately needed to be done. Let this be the last nail in the coffin of climate extremism. I hope that, as a result of this work, David will be properly recognized by the Australian Government, which – unlike its unlamented predecessor – is open to the possibility that influences other than Man are the principal drivers of the climate. David’s work is heroic in its scale, formidable in its ingenuity, and – as far as a mere layman can judge – very likely to be broadly correct. One should not minimize the courage of David and Jo in persisting unrewarded for so long in what was and is a genuine search for the truth, starting not from any preconception but from that curiosity that is the mainspring of all true science. I wish this project well and congratulate its justifiably proud parents on its birth."
Monckton of Brenchley June 15th 2014.
– Thank you Christopher– says Jo.
(Monckton stayed with us in March 2013 and was one of the first to see the developing model. We all got quite caught up in the excitement.)
A major project is the distribution of information on the actual average global temperature as measured by satellite versus the temperature projections from the Models.
The Journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics has been closed down - for doubting the UN IPCC's near-term predictions.
Christopher Monckton writes to Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications suggesting a phoenix may yet rise from the ashes......
".......You must appreciate the gravity of what you have done. You have killed a learned journal in a field only peripherally connected with the climate because you have decided – or you have cravenly obeyed others unknown who have decided – to take a lamentably unscientific and aprioristic stance on the global warming question, a stance so uncompromising that you will not countenance even a single, passing question about whether the IPCC’s previous predictions are likely to prove correct, even though the IPCC has itself now abandoned its former predictions. And you will not – indeed, cannot – offer a single shred of scientific justification for your viewpoint.
Your challenge to a surely temperately-expressed but serious and by no means illegitimate doubt about the IPCC’s near-term predictions is not itself expressed in the usual scientific manner by a reviewed paper or comment responding to the scientific conclusion that – on no stated ground – you purport to dispute, but by a petulant and irresponsible decision to shut the entire journal down.
This decision of yours, taken without the slightest regard for the scientific method or for the usual canons of disciplined enquiry, logical discourse or peer review, is one too many of its kind. It is not acceptable. I do not propose to accept it or to tolerate it.
Let me tell you, therefore, what will happen next.
First, I shall give Copernicus seven days to reconsider its ludicrous decision to abort the journal for a nakedly political reason and without offering anything that even makes a serious pretense at being a scientific justification.
Secondly, if after seven days I shall not have heard from you that the journal is to continue, I shall invite all of the contributors to the special edition to participate with me in a relaunch of Pattern Recognition in Physics, to take effect immediately. If you or Copernicus object to this course of action on copyright or any other grounds, you will no doubt be sure to let me know within the next seven days. Otherwise, you will be presumed to have forfeited all interest in producing the journal and you will leave the journal to me.
I shall invite Professor Mörner to be the lead editor. The journal will be published online and, I hope, may eventually be taken under the wing of one of the scientific publishing houses with which I have connections.
Thirdly, the first editorial in the relaunched journal will perforce have to address the reasons why Copernicus decided to try (unsuccessfully, as you will by now have realized) to kill the journal. You will come in for some justifiably severe personal criticism in this editorial, for on any view you have not behaved as a senior executive of a reputable scientific publishing house should have behaved. You have taken a corrupt, anti-scientific decision, inferentially because you believed (or perhaps were menaced into believing) that if you did not toe the Party Line on the climate you would be financially or socially disadvantaged.
Fourthly, as the editorial and the press release relaunching the journal will have to point out, you have also, through ignorance, put yourself outside the emerging mainstream of climate science. For, as far as global warming is concerned, that mainstream is now flowing in a far less catastrophist direction than ever before. As you have seen above, even the IPCC, after many strongly-worded representations from expert reviewers such as me, has been forced to abandon its former naïve and imprudent faith in the expensive computer models that have so relentlessly failed to predict global temperature with sufficient conservatism since the 1980s ....."
See Blog HERE
See Lord Monckton Letter in full HERE
As a follow up to these milestones, Lord Monckton wrote the following:
From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Edinburgh, Scotland
To: The Ethicist, New York Times
Mr. Ethicist, - Al-Haytham, founder of the scientific method, said the scientist does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable and widespread. Aristotle  said that reliance upon a consensus even of experts is doubly fallacious. Newton, Huxley, Einstein and Popper agreed. There is a scientific consensus that consensus is not scientific. There has been no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months . The consensus did not predict that . A recent paper  analyzing 11,944 scientific papers on climate marked only 64, or 0.5%, as endorsing the climate consensus. Major uncertainties persist in climate science  and economics . How ethical is it, then, for a newspaper to refuse to publish any letters counter to a consensus that has been proven not to exist; that, even if it did exist, is not the way science is done; that, even if science were done by consensus, has been proven wrong even on the central question how fast the world will warm; and that, even if the problem were as real and as costly as the consensus and the newspaper profit by asking us to believe, demands political solutions many times costlier than the imagined (and now imaginary) problem?
 Sophistical Refutations, c. 350 B.C.
 Least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems, 2013, Monthly Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies, December
 IPCC (1990) predicted 0.35 [0.20, 0.50] K global warming per decade to 2020. IPCC (2013) predicted 0.23 [0.13, 0.33] K global warming per decade to 2050. Since September 1996, no global warming has been observed. At no time since 1750 has either of the two central estimates of warming occurred.
 Legates et al., 2013, on agnotology and climate science, Education and Science.
 See e.g. IPCC, 2001, para. 18.104.22.168.
 Monckton of Brenchley, 2013, Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?, 45th Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Sicily, and CERN, Geneva, August.
In Australia the Climate Commision was disbanded by the new Abbott Government and has morphed into the Climate Council.
This has not stopped them making unsupported claims about the environment.
As a plain English service to science and truth by the Lord Monckton Foundation to the Public See HERE
We are concerned to improve things with a focus on four major program areas:
Media & Communications
The Lord Monckton Foundation will use its best endeavours to develop, promote and support better Education; encourage the active pursuit of empirical Science whilst fighting the range of 'Post Normal', 'Consensus' and 'Settled' activities purporting to be or masquerading as Science (particularly in, but not confined to, ‘climate science’); provide a forum, tools and resources for evidence based Public Policy formulation, critique and deployment; establish Media and Communications resources, activities and strategies designed to ensure more rigorous questioning and critique of those fashionable and powerful ideas and policies which can so easily take root, unimpaired as they currently are, by open debate, rational assessment, proper due diligence or any understanding of consequences (intended or otherwise).
For some information on Lord Monckton himself, see here.
Sponsors & Donations Information:
For your security and for our security, the bank requires some identifying information. Click HERE to make a donation.
You can cancel this Account Information at any time. Please follow the prompts to Create an Account. We have found that the best way to keep you and the Bank and the Lord Monckton Foundation SAFE is for you to set up an Account (as an Account and thus the information can be cancelled at any time). In addition, you can use this Account to obtain benefits knowing that the Lord Monckton Foundation will not pass this information on to any other party (See also our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy at the bottom of this page).
PLEASE NOTE, EVEN AT THIS EARLY STAGE YOU CAN GET AN ACCOUNT; DONATE; VISIT & COMMENT ON OUR BLOG; EMAIL US, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST, AND/OR SIGN THE GUEST BOOK BELOW.
Disclaimer for the Lord Monckton Foundation website:
Material on this site:
Photos and material on this site are used for educational and research purposes and are sourced from media outlets and the internet. If you are the copyright owner of any material used on this site and you object to its use, and such use falls outside the fair use provisions in ss. 40 - 42 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), please email email@example.com, and it will be removed.