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

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

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

Friday, December 19, 2014

Lose weight to green the planet! And lose more weight!

Friday Fun

Source: BMJ
The University of NSW has issued a press release re a paper by Ruben Meerman and Professor Andrew J Brown, published in the British Medical Journal this week. (link)


When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go? BMJ 2014349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7257

(Published 16 December 2014)Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g7257

Weight we want to “lose” 
Excess carbohydrate or protein in the diet is converted to triglyceride and stored in the lipid droplets of adipocytes. Excess dietary fat needs no conversion other than lipolysis and re-esterification. People who wish to lose weight while maintaining their fat-free mass are, biochemically speaking, attempting to metabolise the triglycerides stored in their adipocytes. 
The chemical formula for an average triglyceride molecule can be deduced from fatty acid composition studies. In 1960, Hirsch and colleagues published data that yield an “average fatty acid” with the formula C17.4H33.1O2.1 This 50 year old result is in remarkable agreement with more recent data.2 Three “average fatty acids” esterified to the glycerol backbone (+3C, +6H) give an “average triglyceride” with the formula C54.8H104.4O6. The three most common fatty acids stored in human adipose tissues are oleate (C18H34O2), palmitate (C16H32O2), and linoleate (C18H32O2),1 2 which all esterify to form C55H104O6. 
The complete oxidation of a single triglyceride molecule involves many enzymes and biochemical steps, but the entire process can be summarised as:
C55H104O6+78O2→55CO2+52H2O+energy

Ruben’s novel approach to the biochemistry of weight loss was to trace every atom in the fat being lost and, as far as I am aware, his results are completely new to the field,” says Professor Brown.
“He has also exposed a completely unexpected black hole in the understanding of weight loss amongst the general public and health professionals alike.”

If you follow the atoms in 10 kilograms of fat as they are ‘lost’, 8.4 of those kilograms are exhaled as carbon dioxide through the lungs. The remaining 1.6 kilograms becomes water, which may be excreted in urine, faeces, sweat, breath, tears and other bodily fluids, the authors report.

“None of this is obvious to people because the carbon dioxide gas we exhale is invisible,” says Mr Meerman. (Bold added for the media who depict CO2 as dark soot) 

So, in the mind of this fairly unscientific blogger, if you lose 10g of ugly fat, you create the ingredients for photosynthesis: you create plant food.


So Lose weight and green the planet!    WOW!

But wait! There's more.

Note that, from the top Figure, 10 grams of fat converts to 55 CO2 and only 52 H2O. As photosynthesis uses equal CO2 and H2O, therefore we have a surplus of 3 CO2.

What do we do with the surplus carbon dioxide?

Carboxytherapy


What is Carboxtherapy? Carboxytherapy is a non-surgical procedure used to infuse CO2 gas below the skin. Carbox? Carbon and Oxygen or CO2.

Carboxytherapy works in two different ways: it first fragilizes fat cells with a pressure traumatism, then, in second, CO2 leads to flood vassels dilation in the area where the gas is injected. This reaction to carbon dioxide injection gives a better oxygenation of skin layers with increased lipolysis capabilities. The end result is fewer fat cells and skin tightening.
So, it's a bit like perpetual motion. You lose weight, exhale CO2, inject the excess CO2 and lose more weight.

Simples!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Climate Change: The Facts 2014

The Institute of Public Affairs has brought together this important collection of 21 essays by outstanding authors including Professor Richard Lindzen, Andrew Bolt, Professor Ian Plimer, Mark Steyn, Professor Stewart Franks, James Delingpole, Professor Bob Carter and many more. These authors have been a constant and steady voice for reason in the climate change debate,  and the IPA is proud to publish this important work. The IPA will keep arguing the science of climate change just as we have been doing every year for the last two decades.


To Whet your appetite, here is a sampler piece from Mark Steyn.
You'd have to have a heart as cold and as unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic expedition(AAE) stuck 'in our own experiment', as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson's original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat the dogs. I'm not sure there were any on this expedition, so they'd probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters. Forced to wait a year to be rescued, Sir Douglas later recalled, several of my toes commence to blacken and fester near the tips. Now there's a man who is serious about reducing his footprint.
Moving on from Turney's debacle, Steyn then talks of Al Gore's earlier expedition on the Akademik Shokalskiy.
Anyway as part of his 'Living on thin ice' campaign, Al Gore's own luxury Antarctic Vessel boasted a lineup of celebrity cruisers unseen since the 1979 season finale of the Love Boat– among them the actor Tommy Lee Jones, the pop star Jason Mraz, the airline entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, the director of the Titanic James Cameron, and the Bangladeshi minister of forests Somebody Wossname. If Voyage of the Gored had been a conventional disaster movie like the Poseidon Adventure, the Bangladeshi guy would have been the first to drown, leaving only the noble-winning climatologist (Miley Cyrus) and the Maverick tree ring researcher (Ben Affleck) to twerk their way through the ice to safety. Instead and very regrettably, the SS Gore made it safely home and it fell to Prof Turney's ship to play the role of our generations' Titanic.

A bit of fun but Climate Change: The Facts 2014 also covers some thoughtful pieces and some serious science. To buy the book, go to THIS LINK.


Denying the evidence and using ad hominems

Our Friend Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition has written a moderating piece for the Hutchinson Leader (LINK) in which he calls for Taming the climate debate.
Billions raining down on the hoax.
The climate controversy is one of the world’s most important discussions. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs, and, if U.N. representatives now meeting in Peru are right, the fate of the global environment itself. We need leaders in science, engineering, economics and public policy to contribute to the debate without fear of retribution.
Sadly, the opposite is happening. Because the issue is poisoned with personal attacks, censorship, illogic and even death threats, many of the world’s leading experts are too frightened to comment publicly. They don’t want to be falsely accused.
Tom  calls for a "change in tenor of the debate."

For example, when advocates are criticized as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers should explain, “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.” It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests.
And calling someone an eco-nut or a denier is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy, “against the man,” instead of the idea, a tactic that has no place in rational discourse.
Unfortunately, this voice of reason is ignore by the other side of the debate.

Recently the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry posted an open letter declaring that "Deniers are not Skeptics." 

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
OK, as far as it goes. They blow it when they continue:
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. 
Uh-oh. Now these "Skeptical Inquirers" are trying to claim the high ground and intimating that those of us on the realist side of the debate -
  • deny reality
  • do not engage in scientific research
  • do not consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong

Who is denying reality?

They deny reality. They deny that the back-bone of their belief, the  AGW hypothesis has been multi-falsified (once is enough).

Who does not engage in Scientific Research?


Consider the scientists on the realist side of the debate:

Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Jennifer Marohasy,Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.
Consider the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC )


Who does not consider the evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong?


Did they consider the evidence from the above-mentioned NIPCC reports? Obviously not. 

Did they consider that Global temperatures have paused for more than 18 years? Obviously not.

Did they consider that,  this century, atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30% whilst global temperatures have fallen? Obviously not.

All or Any member(s) of the Skeptical Inquirer panel are invited to respond.

This Flawed Post led to ars technica to respond

In a flawed response, the "Friends of ARS" wrote:
The letter called for the news media to stop allowing doubters of climate change to use the label "skeptic" and instead label them deniers, based on the root "denial," which was defined as "the a priorirejection of ideas without objective consideration."
Get up of your ARS, "friends" and do some checking of your own.

Name just ONE from our side of the debate who doubts climate change? 
"Denialist" is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change. And frankly, there are a fair number of people in that camp who don't accept any of the evidence that's been generated. 
We accept the "evidence of climate change." Do the "friends?"


Consider the fraudulent Mann "Hockey Stick Graph." Did you "Friends" accept this attempt to deny that climate had changed from the MWP to the LIA to the 20th Century Warming?
IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David (Deming) was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails. (link)

Cheap Oil will destroy Costly Renewables

The benchmark U.S. oil price settled 2 cents higher at $55.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices traded as low as $53.90 a barrel and as high as $57.15 a barrel in the session. 

Brent crude, a global price gauge, settled down 2% at $59.86 a barrel, its lowest settlement since May 19, 2009. (Link)

This is good news for consumers but bad news for Alarmists and Politicians pushing the Falsified AGW hypothesis.

The Independent Weekly laments the fall:
The collapsing oil price that is reshaping the global economy could derail the green energy revolution by making renewable power sources prohibitively bad value, experts have warned.

A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.
However,  cheap energy from coal has not had the same effect of keeping prices down.
“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”
Although the Independent says: "the consequences for ...... the climate could be even more radical," it has been shown that, for this century atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30%, there has been a slight fall in global temperature. 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

21 peer reviewed articles on health and industrial wind turbines



The website   Nieuwerust Noise & Bird Watch
has posted an item headed:

21 peer reviewed articles on health and industrial wind turbines


They start off by informing us that there ARE many peer-reviewed and published articles on the adverse health effects related to industrial scale wind energy projects.

Here are a few teasers:

Bob Thorne, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 262, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412557, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262
The adverse effects on health of persons susceptible to noise from wind farms are examined and a hypothesis, the concept of heightened noise zones (pressure variations), as a marker for cause and effect is advanced. A sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside a residence and above an individual’s threshold of hearing inside the home are identified as markers for serious adverse health effects affecting susceptible individuals.
Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 389, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611417841http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/5/389 
Wind turbine noise is annoying and has been linked to increased levels of psychological distress, stress, difficulty falling asleep and sleep interruption. For these reasons, there is a need for competently designed noise standards to safeguard community health and well- being.

Alec N. Salt and James A.Kaltenbach Infrasound , Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 296, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412555,http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

Wind turbines generate low-frequency sounds that affect the ear. The ear is superficially similar to a microphone, converting mechanical sound waves into electrical signals, but does this by complex physiologic processes. Serious misconceptions about low-frequency sound and the ear have resulted from a failure to consider in detail how the ear works. Although the cells that provide hearing are insensitive to infrasound, other sensory cells in the ear are much more sensitive, which can be demonstrated by electrical recordings. Responses to infrasound reach the brain through pathways that do not involve conscious hearing but instead may produce sensations of fullness, pressure or tinnitus, or have no sensation.
Carl V. Phillips, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 303, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412554, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data.
Just a small sample; but remember there are 21 peer-reviewed papers listed on


H/t John Droz Jr

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Would you buy a moronic questionnaire from Morons?

A moronic website has posted a moronic post:

10 Questions For Climate Change Deniers
Look at their moronic first question: 
Would you buy a falsified AGW hypothesis from this man?

Picture Question: Look at the picture of Lord Monckton above. Would you buy a used car from this man?
The Morons are using an ad-hominem about Lord Monckton's medical condition. I challenge the morons to debate Lord Monckton. After the debate, the Morons would crawl off defeated and shamed.

Their second Moronic question: Why do only 24 out of 13950 peer-reviewed papers dispute man-made climate change?

This is from the 2004 Naomi Oreskes paper.

Friends of Science deconstructed this paper and found that the percentage was the reverse of Oreskes' finding. Only 1.2% of the papers Actually Explicitly Agreed with the IPCC declaration: (LINK) Oreskes' Same Old Crap Fictional Leaflet showed that she didn't even understand that vital-to-life carbon dioxide is colourless.

The third moronic question:
why do billionaires secretly have to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into denialist propaganda?
Why do they used the pejorative and false term "deniers." The REAL deniers are the Alarmists. (LINK) Tom Steyer vainly donated $58 million trying to prop up support for the falsified CAGW hypothesis during US mid-term Elections.

If the morons had done their research, they would have found that the sceptics receive only a trifle compared to the funding pushing the climate hoax. As Jo Nova wrote: (Link)
It takes a lot of money to keep a false idea alive.  This is just another Wall of Money. Yet despite that, skeptics are winning battles, unwinding schemes, shrinking the Green gravy trains, and spreading the word.  It’s amazing what a small group of volunteers and barely funded skeptics can achieve with only their wits and truth on their side.
And again:

Big-Green have more money than Big-Oil but the media are blind to it.


Should we pursue any more of the morons' moronic questions?

Well, here is a really stupid question showing they didn't do any research.
Why are there no Climate Scientists for the denial sceptical side? Name One
Take your pick!

Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.

And the moronic  questions continue. To show how scientific they get, just look at their last bit of stupidity:
  1. Look at yourself in a mirror. Does that look like a person who can grasp scientific concepts? a) Yes, b) No, c) I can’t read – I’ve no idea how I got this far through the post.
  2.  
Actually it is amazing that the morons could write that far into a post.


Saturday, December 13, 2014

ICSC News Release: UN SHOULD CONCENTRATE on What People Want

Attention: News Editors, Political, Science and Environment Reporters

TIME FOR THE UN TO GET OUT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

                             

Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and 

public opinion


Ottawa, Canada, December 13, 2014: Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings
of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,” 
said Tom Harrisexecutive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). 
“The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care, 
jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”
“Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday
asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’," continued Harris.
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James
Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16 
priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of 
human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very 
real problems faced by the world’s poor today.
“During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open
letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries 
signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of
Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and 
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,”
concluded Carter.
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take
Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ’Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops. 
Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’
“Not only is climate science highly uncertain but there has been no statistically significant global warming for 18
years despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” said Dunleavy. “As the 
scientists explained in their 2012 open letter to Mr. Ban, ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have 
caused the extreme weather of the past few years.’”
In his 2014 book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, ICSC science advisory board member and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball summed up the situation well: “Climate change has 
happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of 
climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the 
biggest deception in history.”
“The UN must get out of the climate field entirely,” said Ball. “In particular, their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change have always been biased political instruments and should 
be immediately disbanded. Then the agency should focus only on issues the people of the world deem important.”

The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of 
climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate 
issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC 
encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes 
and impacts of climate change.  
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, 
“carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar 
power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.

For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org,
or contact any of the following ICSC representatives: 

In North America:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada
Phone: 613-728-9200
In Australia: 
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne
Former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences 
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811
Australia
Email:  glrmc42@gmail.com 
Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268
In New Zealand:
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
New Zealand
Phone: +64 9 4863859 - Mobile: +64 274836688