All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Alarmist Science doesn’t add up.

Anthony Cox

IPCC's standard of peer review

In 2010 the IPCC ‘science’ was found by the InterAcademy Council, the IAC, to be defective. David Stockwell and I wrote a piece about the IAC for The Drum in the days when the ABC was slightly balanced and was accepting sceptical articles. In that article we pointed out:

Here is what the IAC concluded about the IPCC's standard of peer review: 
"An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 per cent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 per cent of references in Working Group II and 36 per cent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010)." 
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Nearly half the IPCC's science is not peer reviewed; it is grey literature, from interested parties like the WWF and Greenpeace; referencing them is like Clive Hamilton referencing Clive Hamilton. 
But it is just not the peer review failure of the IPCC; it is how the IPCC strays from its own criteria for establishing confidence in its [non] peer reviewed evidence. Confidence in scientific terms means what degree of uncertainty predictions about future climate and causes of that future climate have. 
For instance one of the IPCC's criteria, which is noted in the IAC report, is that it should "give greater attention to assessing uncertainties and confidence in [key findings]". It should also "Avoid trivializing statements just to increase their confidence [and] Determine the areas in your [the IPCC's] chapter where a range of views may need to be described... to form a collective view on uncertainty or confidence." 
What this means is that a true consensus requires "a range of views" on "uncertainty and confidence". Only when you truly know the scientific strengths and weaknesses of your evidence can you claim a consensus, bearing in mind a scientific consensus is only as good as the next scientific paper which may contradict it. The IPCC has actively quashed dissent to achieve its "collective view"; a very Lysenko state of affairs and a non-scientific consensus.

Peter Brobhaff has done a brilliant summary of the IAC’s findings about the IPCC’s defects and lists such things as political influence, bias and the many errors of alarmist science.

In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) was recently examined by a panel of statistical experts, The Technical Advisory Forum (Forum). The Forum found a number of defects with the BoM’s temperature record as Jennifer Marohasy notes. In fact, the recommendations by the Forum deal with profound defects including inadequate uncertainty parameters, inadequate treatment of regional temperature sites and transparency of methodology. In short the Forum found much the same problems with the BoM as the IAC found with the IPCC.

Now a peer reviewed paper published under the auspices of the Royal Society has found incorrigible Poor research design and data analysis by alarmistscience. This had led to false positive results about whether alarmism is even happening. The Paper finds that institutional corruption which requires no further conscious acts of lying by individual scientists in alarmism has created a self-perpetuating conclusion that alarmism is correct.

This paper isdevastating. It claims that the money and other reinforcements of prestige and success ensure that all new alarmist papers conform to alarmism. This is not science but gross propaganda and a corruption of the scientific process. As sceptical scientist Pat Michaels says:

So, instead of being rewarded for research that supports a prior hypothesis, no matter how sloppy it is, those involved in climate studies get published a lot not by testing (which can’t be done in the prospective sense) but by producing dire, horrific results. Because these often appear in prominent journals — which love to feature articles that generate big news stories — the greater the horror, the more likely is promotion, citation and more money.

This then generates more and more of these perverse incentives in a vicious cycle.

All of this is well and good and could be dismissed as just another example of how incentives drive supposedly dispassionate scientists. But in several fields, like climate, the accumulation of horrific literature is often summarized by governments, usually to support some policy. Bad science then justifies bad policy.

It is quite significant that Smaldino and McElreath’s paper was published by the Royal Society. Surely they know the result will be more distrust of the modern scientific enterprise, and, by extension, in the policies supported by it. The fact of its publication is evidence that we have reached a turning point, where the pollution of modern science is now an accepted truth.

The issue is, as much as the manifest corruption of science caused by alarmism, why do our politicians continue to base policy and waste $$$billions on programs which are justified by the corrupt alarmist science.

Friday, 7 October 2016

South Australian Blackout. What does the future hold for South Australia.

Terence Cardwell

Image: GWPF
South Australian Blackout.  What does the future hold for South Australia.
It has become clear now that the failure of the South Australian Grid system was caused by the erratic behaviour, and then the sudden auto-shutdown, of the wind generators.  This substantially increased the load on the Victoria-to-South Australia interconnector, which exceeded the maximum allowable load and tripped the overload system.

The badly-built towers that fell over would have been isolated in just one-tenth of a second by the system protection mechanism, and if the grid system had sufficient stable base-load power you would have seen just a ‘bump’ on the system voltage and frequency graphs, but this would have been nothing that it couldn’t handle under normal circumstances.

The New South Wales system could lose 2 x 660 MW units and still recover stability after the spinning reserve and the unit’s load maximum rate pickups came into action, all within a matter of seconds.  But South Australia was a very under-protected and unstable grid system, with many little gas-fire powered stations trying to hang on to an insane setup.

There is no doubt it will happen again and again; this was not a once off.

It seems that the ‘Greens’ who brought this about are very slow to learn anything intelligent, and this

Saturday, 1 October 2016

The South Australian Statewide Blackout

Terence Cardwell
Image: GWPF

A     I predicted this would happen back in 2009/10 in my first article.  This is NOT a once off event- it will happen again in the not too distant future and continue to do so. Why; because of the continual instability created in the grid system by the constantly changing wind generators and insufficient stable, reliable power generation and the reliance of power from Victoria, who have to continually get them out of their insane situation.

B.            Any change in power generation from the wind generators has to be compensated for and chased by thermal power generation units which  decreases their efficiency substantially and more than obviates any gain from wind generators. These severe load changes can create a power wave within the grid system that can create instability as the thermal units chase the wind generators severe load changes.

C.            Because the winds were so severe the wind generators would have been non operative and locked. So 40% of the power was already out of service before the blackout. So YES the wind generators DID cause the blackout by increasing the load substantially on the Victoria to S.A interconnector.

D.            If the wind generators were allowed to operate in such severe winds they would have torn themselves apart.

E.             It is the first time ever in the history of power generation in Australia that transmission towers have fallen over and we have seen far more severe weather than S.A. I have personally

Friday, 30 September 2016

Alan Jones talks with Dr Jennifer Marohasy

Alan quotes John Clark from Burrado who wrote:
The Greens may as well have sent a message to the South Australians to save the planet from Global Warming, you are going to have to live part of your life in the dark.
People have been told to prepare for "hotter and drier" but are getting "colder and wetter."

Alan says that the alarmists have told there were going to be floods; Jennifer's research shows that Forbes has a major flood every seven years.
They have had repeated flooding......1952 was the worst flood. In terms of rainfall, 1950 was record rainfall in Forbes........yet  CSIRO and the bureau (of Meteorology) says it's going to get drier.
Full Interview here

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Outright false to claim CO2 causes global mean temperature to go up or down

Prof Terry J. Lovell says:
To say CO2 causes global mean temperature to go up or go down is scientifically unproven and, given the current data, it’s false – outright false. 

There is no  such thing as human caused global warming. It’s a scam! 

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Trump Is Right on Climate Change. Dems and GOP Must Follow Him

Tom Harris
ICSC Executive Director

Never before has a presidential election seen a greater contrast in the attitudes of the major candidates towards climate change.
Hillary Clinton told delegates at July’s Democratic National Convention that man-made climate change is “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” Yet Donald Trump calls Clinton’s approach an "extreme, reckless anti-energy agenda," and he told Fox News on July 26 that man-made climate change "could have a minor impact, but nothing, nothing [comparable] to what they're talking about."

To determine which position is most reasonable, and what -- if any -- climate change mitigation policy is needed, we need a way of properly assessing the overall risk of man-made climate change. It is not enough to simply say that the consequences of catastrophic climate change would be so dire that any and all actions to avert it are justified. We need to actually take into account the probability of such events occurring in the foreseeable future.

We conduct risk assessment in everyday life, of course. Yet for some reason, we don’t conduct it on this issue.

When we go for a walk, we risk being hit by a truck, a falling tree, or lightning, events that would obviously be personally catastrophic if they actually came about. But we judge that --

Prostitution caused by man made global warming

Most people will be familiar with

That site was created by John Brignell,  a Brit with a PhD from the University of London. He's an electrical engineer who has done research, design work, consulting, and teaching. (source)

As extensive as that list is (883 items), people keep creating new more ridiculous claims.

Today's ridiculous entry comes from The Science Times

Global Warming May Cause Women To Become Prostitutes, Says Rep. Barbara Lee

A new effect of global warming according to House Democrat Barbara Lee: women may have to engage in "transactional sex" (read: prostitution) in order to fend for their families as food and water become more scarce.   
Lee proposed a resolution on Wednesday that said women will be the worst affected because of global warming. It further said that as the climate changes food and water will become scarce and this will increase "conflict and instability".
Hmmmm......Food   and Water will become scarce.

Food becoming scarce?

No. We have seen that the extra plant food (CO2) in the atmosphere has been greening the planet.
"our ABC;" BBC; NASA;
Image: Paul Zanetti

Water Becoming Scarce?

Australian (FOOL) of the Year Tim Flannery made predictions about water becoming scarce.

Quotes (from Andrew Bolt)

  • In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".
  • In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems... "
  • In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

All failed predictions and because of those predictions, duped Politicians wasted taxpayers' money on what are now idle rusting desalination plants.