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

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Differences between Real Science and Man Made Global Warming Science

Mike Herman writes (LINK) Note: Mike uses MMGW, we have substituted AGW

There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (AGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, AGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda. 
  1. Real science says "Question everything".  AGW says "Questioning AGW is reckless because it threatens the planet."
  2. Real science never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. AGW tries to break that cycle by claiming "the debate is over" and "the science is settled". "SETTLED SCIENCE" IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/...
  3. Real science develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. AGW ISN'T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore's movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to AGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of AGW. There is no observation that AGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
  4. Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as "non-believers", equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:http://business.financialpost....
  5. Real science grants awards for disproving accepted truths. AGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.../
  6. Real science has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but AGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
  7. Real science doesn't claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
  8. Real science keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein's Relativity is still being tested a century later. AGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn't like:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...
  9. Real science accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When AGW predictions are wrong they don't question the hypothesis...they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
  10. Real science never recommends that skeptics be JAILED: http://gawker.com/arrest-clima...   http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16...
  11. Real science doesn't create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
  12. Real science tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. AGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth's climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

Ocean Acidification

Patrick Moore, writing for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy:

Ocean Acidification Will not Kill Coral Reefs and Shellfish

Image: NOAA
When the slight global warming that occurred between 1970 and 2000 came to a virtual standstill, the doomsayers adopted “climate change” which apparently means that all extreme weather events are caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO²). Cold, hot, wet, dry, wind, snow, and large hailstones are attributed to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels.
But the pause in global warming kept on and became embarrassing around 2005. Something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, only more CO² in the atmosphere.
The story goes that as CO² increases in the atmosphere the oceans will absorb more of it and this will cause them to become acidic, well not exactly, but at least to become less basic. This in turn is predicted to dissolve the coral reefs and kill the oysters, clams, mussels, and microscopic algae that have calcareous shells. It was named “global warming’s evil twin”.
Seawater in the open ocean is typically at a pH of 8.0-8.5 on a scale of 0-14 where 0 is most acidic, 14 is most basic and 7 is neutral. Ocean acidification from increased CO² is predicted to make the ocean less basic, perhaps to pH 7.5 under so-called worst-case projections. How do I know that increased CO² will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways.
First, contrary to popular belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04%), CO² is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian period. CO² was about ten times higher then than it is today. Corals and shellfish evolved early and have obviously managed to survive through eras of much higher CO² than present levels. This fact alone should negate the “predictions” of species extinction from CO² levels that are nowhere near the historical maximum.

Read More from Moore here

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Dr Tim Ball debates Canadian Green Elizabeth May -UPDATED

Dr Tim Ball, author of "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" in which he exposed the malicious misuse of climate science as it was distorted by dishonest brokers to advance the political aspirations of the progressive left, debates Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

Myth of Doubt: 

Elizabeth used the phrase Myth of Doubt several times to which Tim replied:

That is not appropriate in this instance because science is about skepticism and what myself and others are trying to do is to be skeptical scientists. We don’t just accept as given what government scientists – and by the way all the people at the IPCC are government appointed people – we don’t accept what they are saying; we’re challenging the science and we’re showing that the evidence doesn’t support what they’re saying. And, of course, we saw that use of “myth of doubt” encompassed in the idea that we are global warming skeptics and then we became ”climate change deniers.”

Elizabeth’s point about the greenhouse effect, by the way, completely ignores the fact that water vapour – she did mention that it was a major greenhouse gas – it’s major by a long way. It’s 97% of the greenhouse gases by volume; CO2 is less than 4% and methane which Andrew Weaver of the IPCC said they didn’t even consider in their computer models and, of course, what they do with water vapour they just say that the amount humans produce is not significant.

Elizabeth May starts off seemingly reasonable but toward the end reverts to type of the Greens that we know and.....


= = = = = = = = = = = 

UPDATE: From Comment by Alex Garcia.
See followup interview with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains a few things that he was not
allowed to say on the broadcast radio show. (HINT: Communism)

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Exporting Australia's control of Environmental Policies to the United Nations

Graham Williamson

Control of Australia’s environmental policies, including climate change, AG21 and sustainability is increasingly being exported to foreign countries, especially through the UN. Since this is all part of globalisation however, control of other policies, even including our human rights, is also being exported to the UN.

This exporting of control typically occurs gradually and involves various stages. Firstly, our government, on our behalf, signs various international treaties or agreements, which the instigators always rush to say are ‘soft law’ and ‘non-binding’. In reality however, although having no basis in law (and no justification democratically), our politicians, in their eagerness to invite the UN to interfere in Australian domestic affairs, effectively get around the law and democratic impediments by using the following means of ‘enforcement’.
  • International moral obligations and economic, or market mechanisms
  • Building reporting requirements and need for compliance reports into the agreement – Australia has agreed to send regular compliance reports to the UN to prove compliance with UN directives, not only in regard to AG21, but also human rights.

In reality there are many non-legal mechanisms to ensure compliance. These international agreements are however only the first step in a gradual process.

The next step in the process is to incorporate the UN’s directives into domestic laws. This process is ongoing, but already it is well advanced with hundreds of UN directives incorporated into local laws.

The end game in this process, is to incorporate UN requirements into enforceable international laws.  This process is intended to be accelerated in Paris this year.

The point must be made abundantly clear, that those who have been actively involved in this process, or those whose philosophy or ideology supports an abandonment of national sovereignty and democracy in support of globalisation, can be expected to strongly defend these changes.

For instance, In a personal communication Greg Hunt advised me that AG21 is a ‘non-binding’ international agreement which is therefore irrelevant. Similarly, Tim Wilson recently advised me, in regard to the exporting of control of human rights to the UN:

“UN treaties have no binding power. They are only binding to the extent that they are incorporated into Australian law. If it is not in law, it has no legal standing.”

The statements of both Greg and Tim are notable not for what they actually said, but rather for what they chose to exclude.

Greg of course, being both a politician and a lawyer, as well as having a background in the UN, is well aware of the international mechanisms which are used to ensure compliance with UN agreements. He is also aware that increasingly, Australian domestic legislation is based upon the dictates of the UN. He must also be aware that for two decades his political colleagues have been compiling expensive compliance reports to convince the UN we are complying with their requirements. And although he claimed the Commonwealth has nothing to do with local Councils, he must also be aware the Commonwealth has been funding AG21 implementation by Councils and has even produced a Local AG21 instruction manual. 

Although he is aware of these facts he chose to exclude all this information when questioned. (bold added)

As noted above, Tim also tried to dismiss concerns about the UN controlling human rights on the basis that UN human rights agreements are non-binding. Like Greg though, Tim chose to exclude many pertinent facts from his answer. 

But even as Tim was answering, the HRC has  submitted a report to the UN alleging a violation of the UN Convention against Torture by the Australian government. Although this referral to the UN, and the response of the UN, are claimed by Tim to be irrelevant and inconsequential, Australia has been criticised by the UN for an alleged breach of the convention. Even worse though, the HRC also recommended, in their submission:
That the government ensure domestic implementation of Australia’s international human rights obligations in law, policy and practice 
So as Tim, a human rights Commissioner with the HRC, says there is no need to worry, UN human rights agreements are non-binding, at exactly the same time the HRC is lobbying the government to ensure UN human rights provisions are made even more enforceable by being enshrined into Australian law. Interestingly, according to Article 29(3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
This is just one of the UN controlled human rights that the HRC is seeking to further enforce upon Australians, but when I questioned Tim to see if this is one of the ‘rights’ he supports for all Australians, he declined to answer.

One of the main human rights Australians need to protect our democracy is the right to make an informed vote for genuine alternatives. But the right to make a democratic vote, which includes the right to be correctly informed and the right to choose from genuine alternatives, is NOT protected in the Constitution. Clearly, a vote for bipartisan collusion, or a vote made in ignorance of the true covert agenda, is not a democratic vote. This right to make a democratic vote should surely receive top priority for Constitutional reform, but it seems it is not even part of the HRC’s agenda.

Interestingly, Tim Wilson would also be aware that, rather than consolidate our human rights as birthright or god given constitutionalised rights, the Australian government announced in 2010 that they will continue to export the control of the human rights of all Australians to the UN, requiring all legislation to be consistent with UN requirements. According to the Australian Human Rights Framework:
“Since its election, the Australian Government has acted to reinvigorate Australia’s engagement with the United Nations. We have issued a standing invitation to the UN to visit Australia to examine the protection of human rights here, sending a clear message that we are committed to our international  obligations and relationship with the United Nations. The Government is committed to restoring Australia’s reputation as a good international citizen………  
The Government will introduce legislation requiring that each new Bill introduced into Parliament, and delegated legislation subject to disallowance, be accompanied by a statement which outlines its compatibility with the seven core UN human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.”

While this change was announced by the previous government, such changes are continuing, and are not reversed by successive governments. The general direction remains the same. 

Interestingly, while the right to make an informed democratic vote is not part of the HRC’s agenda, recommended constitutional changes to support one particular race (aborigines) are part of the HRC report to government.

Now, as the OIC assumes the largest voting bloc in the UN, and attempts to control freedom of speech by outlawing criticism of Islam, we need to extremely vigilant  about who we are placing in charge of our human rights.

When fellow Australians, who we assume are on our side, glibly dismiss concerns by stating international agreements are non-binding, it is pertinent to request a more proactive response in support of Australia, and Australian values. 

The direction in which Australia is going is perfectly clear. Australians deserve the truth, a genuine democratic choice. It is simply not the Aussie way to sell your friends and neighbours out behind their backs.

Any system built upon deception, disloyalty, and abandonment of democracy, will have dire consequences. (bold added)

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Kingsman: the most subversive anti-AGW movie

Anthony Cox

Some movies are unintentionally anti-AGW because they are so pretentious like Atavar or just plain stupid like Noah.

Some are subtle and sly in their critique of AGW like Interstellar, a great movie or Captain America: The Winter Soldier another great piece of cinema.

But there is nothing subtle or sly about Kingsman: The Secret Service; this movie presents in Technicolour the awful nature of alarmists; they are elitist, narcissistic and misanthropic. And riddled in hypocrisy.

The villain is Valentine, played by Samuel Jackson. Valentine is another tech billionaire who despises his fellow man for causing AGW. His solution is to kill off 99.9% of the human population. 

His sales pitch to the rich and famous is classic alarmist agitprop. Valentine tells them that humans are a virus raising the temperature of the living Earth. If the virus isn’t destroyed the planet’s fever will worsen and either the planet will fight back and kill the disease of the disease will kill the planet.

The idea that humans are a disease or parasite has underpinned the AGW narrative and is espoused by all the leading AGW scientists and particularly AGW’s many rich supporters like Bill Gates.

In Kingsman Valentine is seen convincing Obama of his vision which is ironic since Obama’s chief scientist, John Holdren, is an avid supporter of forced reduction of humanity. In real life Obama would have taking no convincing.

Valentine, as the archetypal rich supporter of AGW,  has a tenuous hold on real life. He thinks he is living in a movie and can’t stand the sight of blood even though he is prepared to kill billions. 

Valentine is the perfect portrayal of the elitist loon who supports AGW. He has made his vast wealth from his society and now as a matter of vanity will destroy that society. The thought that his lifestyle will cease when the society is destroyed doesn’t enter his thinking. This is cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.

Valentine implants chips in the chosen ones so they can resist the doomsday device he has perfected. 

In a delicious twist all the elistists, including Obama (and Prince Charles) literally lose their heads when the device backfires.

The movie wittily portrays the religious nature of AGW belief when Valentine tests his device on a bible bashing Southern Baptist church. The message is plain: when religion claims to be fact trouble is inevitable. This is what has happened with AGW: it is religion masquerading as fact. Armed with the pseudoscience of AGW rich crackpots like Valentine can live out their dreams. At the end Valentine can’t tell reality from his ego generated bubble of fantasy.

The movie offers no formal solution to the blight of public corruption by the AGW scam and relies on a steadfast and very aggressive secret organisation to violently eradicate the AGW zealots and hypocrites.

We should be so lucky in the real world.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Fingerprints of the Sun on Asia-Australia Summer Monsoon Rainfalls during the Little Ice Age

A new paper has been published in Nature Geoscience entitled ‘Dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age ’ by Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences and an international team of co-authors from the Alfred Wegener Institute (Wei Wei), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Willie Soon), Institute of Earth Environment (Zhisheng An, Weijian Zhou and Yuhong Wang), University of Hong Kong (Zhonghui Liu) and Institute of Public Affairs (Robert M. Carter).

The results of the research indicate that both the East Asia Summer Monsoon and the Northern Australia Summer Monsoon retreated synchronously during the recent cold Little Ice Age in response to external forcings such as solar irradiance variation and possibly large volcanic eruptions.
The Asia-Australia monsoon covers the world’s most populated areas, and therefore understanding the factors that control monsoon-belt climatic variation through time is important for response-planning for healthy social-economic development for the globe. Many previous studies have focused on the past climate changes in the Asia-Australia monsoon area, often proposing that the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) or the associated rainbelt should have migrated southward during cold climate episodes, such as the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850). Such migrations should be associated with the occurrence of a weaker East Asian Summer Monsoon and a stronger Australian Summer Monsoon, with opposing rainfall variations between the two hemispheres.
However, hydrological records from the Asia-Australia summer monsoon area, analysed by Professor Hong Yan and his coauthors, show that southward migration of the ITCZ did not occur during the cold Little Ice Age. Instead, the hydrological data support the operation of a new dynamic mechanism named ‘ITCZ/Rainbelt contraction’ in the Western Pacific region during the Little Ice Age.

Prima facie, a southward migration of the ITCZ should result in less precipitation in the East Asia Summer Monsoon area but more rainfall in Australia Summer Monsoon area. In contrast, the Synthesis of a large set of palaeoclimatological records from across the monsoonal area establishes that the precipitation in both continental East Asia and northern Australia decreased synchronously during the Little Ice Age. The unusual spatial variation in paleoclimate records therefore documents a distinctly different rainfall pattern that violates the former expectation of ITCZ southward migration. Furthermore, comparison of these results with solar records indicates that a relationship exists between the rainfall changes and Total Solar Insolation.

To explain these changes, the scientists propose an alternative dynamic scenario which they have tested using process-based climate modeling. Rather than strict north-south migration, the multi-decadal to centennial change for the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone can excitingly be shown to have contracted or expanded in parallel with solar irradiance variations. This new understanding clearly adds to the richness of mechanisms by which the Earth climate system can vary naturally and significantly over periods between a few decades and up to a century in length.

Pattern of rainfall within the East Asia Summer Monsoon (left) and Australia Summer Monsoon (right) area during the LIA. Locations of proxy-hydrology records in the Asia-Australia monsoon area are indicated. Locations that were dry, without apparent change and wet during the LIA are marked in red, purple and blue, respectively. The decreased rainfall in East Asia continent and northern Australia suggested the synchronous retreat of the East Asian Summer Monsoon and the Australian Summer Monsoon during the Little Ice Age (Image by Dr YAN Hong).

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Cartoonist Cook's UNSkeptical UNScience

Image: Washington Times
This blog has written before about the paid disinformation site [UNSkeptical UNScience] run by UNSkeptical cartoonist John Cook. For example, under the heading:

EUREKA award Cooked Up?

A few items from that post:

Cook Advanced Climate Change Knowledge? He debunked lies and misinformation about climate change science? 

Czech Physicist Luboš Motl has a different spin:
John Cook will receive lots of money for climate propaganda This guy has no clue about the climate science or atmospheric physics but he has gained some notoriety for his mass production of talking points meant to spread the climate panic and produce doubts about well-established scientific insights that show that there is no reason to be worried about climate change. 

Joanne Nova wrote:

John Cook might be skeptical about skeptics, but when it comes to government funded committee reports, not so much.
The author of “skeptical science” has finally decided to try to point out things he thinks are flaws in The Skeptics Handbook. Instead, he misquotes me, shies away from actually displaying the damning graphs I use, gets a bit confused about the difference between a law and a measurement, unwittingly disagrees with his own heroes, and misunderstands the climate models he bases his faith on. Not so “skeptical” eh John? He’s put together a page of half-truths and sloppy errors and only took 21 months to do it.
And then we have the idiotic (although peer [or pal] reviewed) paper on consensus Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role. See:

0.3% CONSENSUS,  NOT 97.1%

Hardly a satisfactory margin of error!

In one of his cartoons on UNSkeptical UNScience {Link}, Mr Cook strangely revealed some facts re the man-made climate change debate:

Let's look at the panels:

Yes, and this fact was revealed by none other than the head of the UNFCCC Christiana Figueres recently (See link) and more subtly in this UNFCC press release -
Countries on Track to Paris Agreement
which, as The Washington Times wrote:

The coming climate court

The proposed Paris agreement is another reach for global power

 The Rudd/Gillard Governments introduced a tax on vital to life CO2, which had devastating effects  on the economy.

As the ABC's DRUM reported on the crippling tax's repeal: (link)

Goodbye to the all pain, no gain carbon tax

The carbon tax lacked democratic legitimacy, hurt the Australian economy, and did nothing to address global warming. Good riddance.

Bob Carter in Taxing Air,  on Glacials (Ice Ages) and Interglacials: (bold added)

For most of the last million years Earth has experienced glacial conditions, interrupted by only brief interglacial periods of warmth such as the one that we enjoy now.  
Just 20,000 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the last glacial maximum. Great ice sheets covered North America to between the 40th and 50th parallels of latitude; a similar ice sheet covered North West Europe and the region of the Alps.The source of the ice was a transfer of water by evaporation from the oceans and precipitation of snow at high latitudes, as a result of which global sea-level was about 130 metres lower than now. Temperatures during the last glaciation were up to 20oC cooler than today over Greenland and 10oC cooler over Antarctica. 
The current interglacial is called the Holocene. While not as warm as the last interglacial, the Holocene has now lasted a little longer than the 10,000 years that represent the average length of recent interglacials.    
At present we are on a temperature plateau. When temperature change begins again, will it head up or down?

Russian Physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years. (Hockey Shtick)

So, perhaps the cartoons third panel depicts the truth, perhaps not. But on balance, the cartoon is closer to climate fact than climate fiction.

For the last 28 years the UN IPCC have been commissioned to find that human emissions of greenhouse gases, and mainly carbon dioxide, are causing dangerous global warming. Unfortunately their hypothesis has been falsified. One falsification is all that is necessary. However the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified multiple times

In a strange tweet (link) last month, Cook posted this cartoon showing, as the hoax gets exposed, the public take less and less notice of the disintegrating IPCC: