We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

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: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Monday, 6 July 2015

It's the Sun! SS "myth" turns out to be fact.

Another in our series of exposing the flawed science of cartoonist Cook's flawed UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) and the so-called 

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths Facts

In second place on the lists, SS claims that the Sun and Climate (presumably they mean temperature) have been going in opposite directions:
It's the sun"

Professor Bob Carter writes (LINK)
The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.8ºC rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. 
Anthony Cox refers us to Dr David Stockwell's paper "On the dynamics of Global Temperature"and his graph of solar and temperature

From Quadrant

Cumulative solar irradiance (blue) and volcanic forcing (red) is
highly correlated with HadCRU global temperature and explains
the trend in temperature since 1950.
The direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature.

Sunday, 5 July 2015

Temperature Record is Unreliable.

UnSkeptical Unscience in a post headed Global Warming & Climate Change Myths has No. 7  

"Temp record is unreliable"The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

Rebuttal by Anthony Cox

Temp record is unreliable. Completely. Satellites vs ground for 17 years with CO2 increasing. How can you say with certainty temperature is reliable given the opposite measurement from satellite and ground? 

The Australian BOM’s temperature record is problematic as Jennifer Marohasy, David Stockwell, Bill Johnston, Ken Stewart, Jo Nova and Chris Gillham and other private researchers show. 

The BOM set up its own panel of expert statisticians to appraise its systems which produced some interesting results

For instance one of the private researchers notes this from the panel’s report, pages 17-18: 
The Bureau presented the Forum with analyses of the raw and adjusted data that suggested a slight difference in the estimated annual mean temperature anomaly compared to the base period 1961–1990. This difference resulted from descriptive quadratic functions fitted to the raw and adjusted data, respectively. The Forum identified several issues with this approach: 
  • While it is acknowledged that the quadratic function is a valid fit to the available data, it is inconsistent with the language used by the Bureau to describe the temperature pattern as being essentially flat until a particular time, after which it rises progressively. The language used is consistent with a piecewise linear fit rather than a quadratic, and each of the two forms require only a small number of parameters to be estimated (and hence are similarly parsimonious as descriptions of the data).
  • A quadratic fit to these data is purely descriptive and not useful for forecasts of future annual mean temperature anomalies. Further, the extent to which the fit is affected by differential variability between distant past data (e.g. 1910–1930) and present data (e.g. 1990–2014) may be material to the parameter estimates, and hence to the precision of estimates based on the fit (for both raw and adjusted cases).
  • The use of a quadratic functional form carries the risk, if (mis)used to project temperatures beyond or before the observation period, of seriously overestimating the change. The Forum strongly recommends that the use of piecewise linear fits or nonparametric smoothers such as LOWESS be revisited by the Bureau. However, the Forum notes that all such fits are best considered only as descriptive curves fit to the available data and should not be interpreted as implying any particular underlying physical model for temperature behaviour beyond the period for which data are available. In particular, the Forum cautions against the explicit use of such fitted curves to generate specific forecasts or predictions of future temperature behaviour. NOTE: My bolds and underlines throughout.

The private researcher further notes: 
Quadratic and other polynomial equations always trend to infinity. That is what they do. Quadratic equations graph parabolas. They should not be used to graph cyclic phenomena such as weather or climate, because whilst they can be made to fit a short section of data of say 100 years, any extrapolation outside this will quickly lead to absurd results
These absurd results are the alarmists think the Earth’s temperature could “runaway”, go on forever and Earth could end up like Venus (see SS Myths: items 30, 34, 73, 91 and 110). Christopher AMonckton calls this scientific neuroticism feedback inflation

It not only has no basis in science or statistics but gives insight into the minds of alarmists. There is literally no end to how bad they think things could get.

Friday, 3 July 2015

Oh, Glorious White masts

Dear rhymeafterrhyme has done it again
This time on wind farms swirling in green
Green mist blinds the pollies
Their ignorance seen

So contact your member 
Send MPs a note
Say in December
We want a no vote

Oh Glorious White Masts!

© Will Scribe 2015

Oh glorious white masts!
Out of subsidies wrought,
From a left wing agenda
So skilfully taught,
By politicians on a mission
To change the world,
Our judgement being clouded
As the green mist swirled.

Will Scribe Wind Turbine 02

Oh glorious white masts!
May each turbine blade
Keep reminding us all
Of the vast amounts paid
To have you erected,
And to destroy our views,
And to provide so little
Of the power that we use.

Halal in Australia. Is defamation Halal certified?

Anthony Cox

The defamation case currently being conducted by a prominent Islamic halal certifier, El Mouelhy, against Kirralie Smith who runs Halal Choices, and other members of the Q Society, has reached an interesting point. El Mouelhy is no stranger to the court room and has litigated on halal matters before which if nothing else gave an indication of how much money is involved in the halal certification process which world-wide is astounding.

El Mouelhy alleged Smith had described him as 
reasonably suspected of providing financial support to terrorist organisations and as part of a conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation from within.

On June 12 interim orders were made by the Supreme Court. These orders acted to narrow the scope of the claim by El Mouelhy against Smith. The Q Society describes the result as:

Justice McCallum handed down an oral judgment at 2:00pm today. We were quite successful. 
There were two central issues in consideration: 
1. Should the plaintiff (Mr Mohamed El-Mouhely) be obliged to provide particulars of "worldwide" publication? 
At the previous hearing we argued that the Plaintiff must particularise the jurisdictions and the people within those jurisdictions who accessed the videos overseas (except for the US). Her Honour found in favour of our argument - that it was unacceptable to allow a relaxation of the rules simply because the Plaintiff has submitted that particularising the publication areas is "mission impossible". 
Therefore this cause of action cannot be maintained unless further particulars are provided by the Plaintiff. Her Honour referred to the submission of Mr Connell (acting for the Plaintiff) that the Plaintiff has business connections and offices overseas and that his reputation may have been affected by virtue of the videos being viewed in these places where he conducts business. It was held that those submissions only serve to emphasise that the Plaintiff should be in a position to provide further particulars as to publication of the videos worldwide. Mr Connell then added that there was a case in Malaysia where a business associate of the Plaintiff mentioned the videos. Her Honour said that there may be substance in this argument if the Plaintiff can prove that he in fact lost business contracts as a result of the overseas interactions on the basis of his inclusion in the videos. Mr Connell did not confirm if his client had lost any business - only that he had been approached by someone in Malaysia regarding the videos. 
2. Should some of the imputations be struck out? 
Her Honour first dealt with the threshold issue which involved an argument that we could not have another "bite of the cherry" and resubmit objections to imputations. However, it was allowed on the basis that issues as to the form of imputations should be resolved before a final hearing. Her Honour then made a statement to the effect that the videos reflect the "complexity of public discourse" in the field of political values - in other words, it is difficult to define values. In the circumstances Her Honour allowed our objections to the imputations to be heard again. The relevant imputations below and reflect some of the unusual and difficult aspects of this case: 
16(c) "That the plaintiff is a person who has values opposed to the fundamental human right and Australian value of freedom of religion and Australian values of choice, a fair go and freedom" - this was held to be too general and thus was struck out. 
16(d) "That the plaintiff was part of a push for instituting repressive Sharia law in Australia" - while expressed in general terms, this imputation was upheld and will be left to the jury. 
16(e) "That the Plaintiff was part of a global push for Islamisation calculated to destroy Australian values of freedom and tolerance" - this was held to be "nonsensical" and thus was struck out. 
25(b) "That the Plaintiff sought to erode Australian values of freedom of religion, speech and democracy" - this failed to distill a defamatory sting, was unclear and therefore was struck out. 
25(c) "That the Plaintiff was part of a conspiracy to destroy Western Civilisation from within" - this is incapable of being pleaded to and thus was struck out. 
25(d) "That the Plaintiff was part of a conspiracy to achieve World domination" - for the same reasons as 25(c) - the difficulty is that the imputation fails to distill itself from the "elusive rhetoric" of the video and thus was struck out. Overall this is a very sound result with 5 out of the 6 imputations being struck out. This should help simplify the final hearing and avoid a number of impossible arguments that seemed destined to lead to difficult decisions and appeals. 
While the opposing side will now have another opportunity to amend their statement of claim, it will bring us much closer to a final hearing.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds. Especially since The Australian-based charity Da al Quran wa Sunnah has had its Australian representatives in Lebanon arrested for having contacts with ISIS.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

SS's Myth Creator John Cook

Skeptical Science (SS) is a disinformation site which more correctly should be labelled UNSkeptical UNScience.

It is run by a cartoonist John Cook who likes to dress in SS costume. The image above was on the SS site but has since been removed. One of his cartoons here (link)

And Popular Science's "
The Truth about Skeptical Science" tells us:
A link from the Skeptical Science "About" page originally went to his cartoonist page,
"John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia

               John Cook
A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia, John is currently juggling the tasks of taking care of his daughter Gaby, drawing new Sev Space cartoons, casino online,continually developing and programming the Sev Wide Web, developing a new cartoon series Terrible Twos, posting regular updates in his cricket blog as well as obsession about past and future Ashes series, dabbling in screenwriting, programming for PaperWeb Design and consequently getting nothing done! 

Previous about on SS: (link)

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.
An example of Cook's Work was:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (link)

 From the abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, .......... Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
However a paper by Legates et al found: (link)
inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Whooops! Slight error, Reichsführer- 97.1% found to be 0.3%.

And yet Reichsführer Cook is the man that the University of Queensland put in charge of a course that "uncovers why the topic of climate change is so controversial, exploding a number of climate myths along the way."

ON UNSkeptical UNScience, Cook et al have a page titled
Global Warming and Climate Change Myths
This is a scrappy crappy page and all the "Myths" are easily debunked.

"Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

This SS "myth's" answer has been debunked
Here - 

UNSkeptical UNScience's Manufactured Myths.

SS's No. 4 "Myth" is
"There is no consensus"

As has been shown above, Cook et al's 97% consensus paper has been shown to be very flawed.

Friends of Science site has debunked a whole range of other "Myths" on their page headed:

  • MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
  • MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
  • MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
  • MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
  • MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
  • MYTH 6:  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming. 
  • MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.
  • MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
  • MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
  • MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
All debunked.

More on the SS "Myths" to follow on this blog.