(This was mailed to individual members of the Australian Greens and Labour Parties. This did not stop them ignoring the technical facts and imposing what amounts to a religious tax appeasing the angry climate god. These people claim to be atheists but the proper term is, obviously, animists -- worshipping the gods of Nature. They demand that we all participate in their religion.)

It is apparent to anyone with the Post Hole Digging qualification, that this planet is not encased in a test tube (not a closed system); and the weather is both random and non-random at the same time --predictable yet non-predictable. We therefore have to do with something that goes close to being a chaotic process, the most difficult of all processes to describe mathematically. This is manifest and apparent to all who live in the real world, and have gone outdoors. Holders of a Persistent Harangue Dissertation qualification (within a closed or non-observational mental framework) - separate from the observable real world - dissertate and harangue persistently in an attempt to get those who dig post holes to believe what their eyes and their senses tell them cannot be true - namely, that a near-chaotic process with variable and as yet unknown input from outside itself has been mathematically captured and caged, like a canary. In time, we shall all graduate, with Permanent Head - er, ache(s).

By definition, there is no such discipline as climate science-in the sense of mathematics, enabling reliable predictive conclusions. It would be almost as true to say that there is ghost science, as to say there is climate science. It is legitimate to study ghost sightings and it is legitimate to study climate observations. They are both phantom disciplines, one much more so than the other. There is no such thing as climate science, in the sense of bridge building science, or genetics, or quantum physics. Science is built upon mathematics. Bridge engineering relies upon mathematics. Genetics (strangely enough) relies upon mathematical coding. Quantum physics is the mathematical description of the basis of matter. 'Climate science' to date is a collation of observations, nothing more. Those observations can be expressed mathematically and have some predictive value. Meteorologists get it right, some of the time, no more than a week ahead as a rule. No-one would drive on a bridge built upon the mathematics of meteorology. The simple, undeniable fact is that modelling the atmosphere requires the mathematics of turbulent flow, married with heat transfer, under constantly changing conditions, not ignoring quantum (subatomic) particle interaction etc, etc., ---all these disciplines being currently in their infancy! In short: we don't even fully know what makes it rain. And, since, as Genesis informs us; God caused it to rain, is that surprising? Post hole digging has educational value, especially in a rain shower.

The assertion that climate science is reliably predictive has no more basis in fact than the claim that carbon dioxide, essential, harmless atmospheric compound, is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant to those who desire to overthrow our economy and our society. A century or more ago, electricity was the vis nervosa - the 'essence of life' - to those who desired to overthrow established society in those times. Electricity explained life: now, carbon dioxide explains the sun and the rain. It's called, worshipping the creature. Islam or some aspect of it is rumoured to worship a probable meteorite(?): the Australian Greens or some aspects thereof worship the primordial soup. No wonder the Greens welcome Islam. But, leaving fanaticism aside; nowhere in the Bible does wantonly destroying the landscape get the thumbs up.

The total long term predictive value of climate science is zero. It is true that greenhouse gases can give a warming effect in a test tube. The earth is not in a test tube, and is far more complex than any test tube mix so far designed. It is true that carbon dioxide slightly acidifies water and could theoretically slow coral growth. It is also true that lack of carbon dioxide can slow coral growth through alkalinity. It is also true that at any moment, events outside Man's control, such as volcanism, and changes in the sun, could make a joke out of any climate proposal.

'Climate Science' is by definition religion, not science. (The real climate science, such as it is, is basically geology, which tells us exactly what we would expect - don't try to predict anything, but, somehow, this world got here safely through many trials, toils and snares. There is information lately come to hand, giving clear indication as to how such a miracle could be! The circulating oceans and atmosphere generate their own magnetic sub -field, which 'overprints' the main magnetic field, and thus feeds back climate-related information in such a way as to enable climate moderation. The sun, far from being an impassive ongoing explosion, is a sophisticated heat-metering device. That's where physics is pointing - and the geologic record concurs!)

So in one short paragraph we have summarized everything we currently know of real climate science. But, given that the false 'climate science' is essentially mental and spiritual delusion, and the God who made the heaven and the earth shines light to dispel delusion --what is the truth?

Without delaying for lengthy scripture quotation, other than to mention that the final few chapters of Job are totally relevant: scattered throughout the Bible are references to meteorological factors. There are noteworthy aspects of this biblical meteorology. High speed turbulence in fluids (waters, floods, etc.); quantum physics (the parting of light, a way for the lightning, etc.) and surprisingly, a seeming association or equation between the coalescing of rain/hail/snow, and the formation of planets. The latter is an incidental aside: interestingly, a Melburnian, Dr. Andrew Prentice, formulated mathematics of high-speed (multi-supersonic) particle interaction which he proposed explained the coalescing of the planets. (The Earth was gathered together, from unstructured waters/floods.) He didn't rely on the Bible, so missed out the complementary and necessary effects of shock waves or something such, generated by synchronous singing, in Earth's case, of the morning stars.

Australians have made technical advances, world-class.

As for the future, and our responsibility thereto? - we are given permission to mine things: Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. Either the Creator made a blunder, here, or Bob Brown & co. of the Greens got it slightly wrong. Personally, I would like to see Australia doing more manufacture and value adding, rather than being a quarry: but isn't it just like the Enemy of Mankind to motivate people to go around holier than thou, condemning other people engaged in lawful business? They rely on the coal exports to get the money to badger honest citizens.

The weather, and our future, is all in the Bible. It sure isn't with P.ersistent H.arangue D.issertation's. - unless it's the post hole type.
Regards, Philip Heywood.