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, 8 October 2015

Australia MUST SAY NO to COP21 Climate Treaty

Why say “No” to a new UN Climate Treaty?
  1. 25 years of Propaganda - The upcoming conference in Paris is the culmination of more than two decades of intensive (and very expensive) propagandizing and fear-mongering aimed at convincing the people of the world (especially in The West) that we must all submit to drastic global controls or face dreadful consequences from catastrophic anthropogenic (human- caused) global warming (CAGW).
  2. Bogus ‘science’ collapsing -The Paris conference is probably the ‘last ditch stand’ for the climate alarmists because real world measurements are steadily demolishing the predictions derived from deficient computer models. For example, even though carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are steadily increasing:
    • average global temperatures have not risen for more than 17 years.
    • actual sea level rise is looking like approximately 17 cm per century compared with UN
      predictions of 90 cm.
    • Arctic and Antarctic sea ice coverage is growing despite predictions it would disappear.
  3. Plans to subvert our democracy -The conference organisers are desperate to get every nation to sign up to a new climate treaty which will commit the entire world to new emission reduction targets and commit developed nations like Australia to billions of dollars in contributions to the UN’s climate fund.
  4. Global Governance -The UN sees such a treaty as a major step forward in establishing a world government which will be able to over-ride national sovereignties by controlling global energy resources and supply. It looks like both President Obama and misguided Pope Francis will support the UN push.
  5. Canada & Australia unwilling -The conservative national governments in Canada and Australia were the only likely standouts’ in the western world – likely to resist signing the treaty. This is because the Canadian Prime Minister (Harper) and the former Australian Prime Minister (Abbott) had both rejected any climate control policies (like carbon taxes or emission trading schemes) which were likely to damage their national economies.
  6. Plot against Abbott - For this reason, left wing forces, sponsored by UN affiliations, have successfully unseated Abbott by destabilising his Prime Ministership and are working relentlessly to replace Harper’s Party at the Canadian elections in October, 2015
  7. Turnbull turnabout - Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, with the support of Greg Hunt, without the moderating influence of Abbott’s scepticism, now will be almost certain to sign the Paris treaty and so sell us all out.
  8. Just in case - If the new treaty is to be endorsed by Australia, it is essential that our representatives insist on an ‘ESCAPE CLAUSE’ such as was included in the previous Kyoto treaty to which Kevin Rudd signed us up in December, 2007. Otherwise, we may be submitting to UN control forever.
    A publication of The Southern Sydney Think Tank (SSTT) October, 2015 Email: SSTT@politician.com

Content inspired by opinions of Lord Christopher Monckton, Global Warming Policy Foundation http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/lord-monckton-and-push-to-get-rid-of-pm.html 

David Suzuki wrong again.

David Suzuki, on his eponymous website http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/describes himself as
David Suzuki, Co-Founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. 
and continues:
He is renowned for his radio and television programs that explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way. 
Compelling easily understood way?

On a visit to Australia, as a self confessed scientist,  he showed an amazing ignorance of some basics of climate science. We reported it under the heading

Snake Oil Salesman Suzuki fails simple science test.

Everyone interested in climate science knows of the main data sets for measuring global temperature; the two satellite data sets, the remote sensing system (RSS) and the set from the University of Alabama Huntsville. The other data sets are NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and from the Hadley climate research unit the  two HadCRUT sets with different methods of tweeking - HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT 4.
David Suzuki has made a career out of travelling the world pushing the alarmist view of climate change.  
Surely then he would be aware of these global temperature data sets. And yet on QandA last night (23/9/2013), when asked about them by Bill Koutalianos, he seemed to be unaware of them. 
Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?  
Suzuki: ...yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong - as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they're thinking. 
Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS- data that show a 17 year flat trend (now around 20 years - ed)which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory.  
Suzuki: What is the reference - I don’t  er…..  
Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with (See video below)
At this point Suzuki interrupted
Suzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.
The fact that a salesman explaining the "complexitites of science" was unaware of the data sets that climate scientists use is more than amazing.

More up to date, recently Suzuki falsely stated that Realist organisations are funded by BigOil (link)
Part of the problem is that fossil fuel interests spend enormous amounts of money to sow doubt and confusion, often by funding or setting up organizations like the Heartland Institute in the U.S., the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the U.K., Ethical Oil and Friends of Science in Canada, and the International Climate Science Coalition, based in this country but affiliated with similar organizations in Australia and New Zealand and with close ties to Heartland. ....... 
These secretive organizations rarely reveal funding sources...
CEO of  the International Climate Science Coalition, Tom Harris has responded:
David Suzuki is wrong to imply that the group I lead, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), was set up by “fossil-fuel interests.” 
In reality, the ICSC was founded in 2007 by Terry Dunleavy, OBE, of New Zealand. Mr. Dunleavy is a leader in that country’s wine industry. Mr. Dunleavy found that there was such strong worldwide support for the non-partisan, science-based approach of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition that an international body taking the same tack would be beneficial. 
Since I assumed the Executive Director role of ICSC in 2008, the identities of all donors to ICSC has been 100 percent confidential to protect their privacy, and quite frankly, safety. Some of the scientists who advise us on a volunteer basis have had death threats for speaking out against the idea that dangerous climate change is occurring as a result of humanity’s relatively small carbon dioxide emissions. We would not want to risk subjecting the people generous enough to help ICSC cover its modest operating expense to such abuse. 
It is ironic that David Suzuki accuses his opponents of being “secretive organizations [that] rarely reveal funding sources” when, according to its2009 annual report, the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) received $1 million or more from “Anonymous.” According to its 2010 annual report, the DSF received between $10,000–$99,999 (exact amount not listed) from “87215 Canada Ltd.” 
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Perhaps Suzuki should learn more about the  complexities of the natural sciences before he tries explaining them in a compelling, easily understood way. 

Video Courtesy of Australian Climate Madness

The Lancet Commissions' Health and Climate Change report critiqued by Dr D Weston Allen

The Lancet Commissions
Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health

Critiqued by Dr D Weston Allen MBBS, FRACGP, Grad Dip Phys Med


“The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change,” comprising 45 international multidisciplinary academics (29 PhD’s and one MD) headed by Nick Watts (MA), was “formed to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide.” It was released on 23 June and is freely available online here.

The UCL-Lancet Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change had published a report prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit of 2009; and this report is timed to precede the Paris Convention beginning 30 November. It has been promoted by Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) in Medical Observer and by Jo Hartley’s Editorial in Australian Doctor on 3 July.

Why would a full-time GP critique this Lancet Commissions report? I have had a keen interest in health promotion since the 1970s,[1], [2] in experimental science since the 1980s,[3], [4] in evidence-based medicine since the 1990s and in climate science since the early 2000s.[5] On reading the report, I found it to contain some valuable information and worthwhile suggestions, but also some deficiencies and areas of concern.

Regarding attitudes to climate change, I have observed two polarised positions:
  1.      Those who think it is real but entirely natural and unalterable, and who label dissenters as alarmists or warmists;
  2.      Those who think it is entirely anthropogenic and dangerous, who predict catastrophe unless we rapidly decarbonise, who classify dissenters as contrarians or deniers, and who lay claim to a 97% scientific consensus (Cook et al 2013).[6]

A comprehensive survey of over 1,800 international climate-related scientists in 2012, published by Verheggen et al (2014)[7] and later analysed in detail (April 2015),[8] reveals a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement. I identify with the less vocal middle ground where scientific objectivity is valued more highly than advocacy for a cause.

In critiquing The Weather Makers and Slaying the Sky Dragon, publications representing both extreme positions, I found them wanting in scientific rigor; making unwarranted assumptions and erroneous or extreme statements; cherry-picking data, ignoring inconvenient evidence and mishandling uncertainties. I will leave the reader to judge the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change in that regard. It is certainly not free from confirmation bias – and neither am I.

I take sole responsibility for preparing and publishing this critique; I have received no funding or influence from any source; and I have no conflict of interest other than some Rio Tinto and SILEX shares, held since 1999 in a self-managed super fund and now comprising less than 0.4% of the assets in that fund. As a frugal vegetarian who often cycles to work and elsewhere, I happen to have a modest carbon footprint but no illusions about thereby saving the planet.

In summary, this Lancet Commissions 2015 Report:

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

More Doubts re AGW Science as COP21 approaches

Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop are keen to sign onto the UN's Green Climate Fund. Even under PM Abbott, Bishop announced she would waste $200M on the fund. (link)
The Federal Government has announced it will contribute $200 million to an international fund designed to help developing nations tackle climate change. 
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced the funding at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru.
As COP21 approaches, more evidence not to sign is being exposed.

Reported in the Journal: Environmental Science and Technology

Unravelling New Processes at Interfaces: Photochemical Isoprene Production at the Sea Surface

Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02388
Publication Date (Web): September 10, 2015
Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society


Isoprene is an important reactive gas that is produced mainly in terrestrial ecosystems but is also produced in marine ecosystems. In the marine environment, isoprene is produced in the seawater by various biological processes. Here, we show that photosensitized reactions involving the sea-surface microlayer lead to the production of significant amounts of isoprene. It is suggested that H-abstraction processes are initiated by photochemically excited dissolved organic matter which will the degrade fatty acids acting as surfactants. This chemical interfacial processing may represent a significant abiotic source of isoprene in the marine boundary layer.

Read the paper HERE.

The Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research issued an announcement: (LINK)
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality. 
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon. 
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
Science again shows that the GCMs have made wrong assumptions; the science is NOT SETTLED. 

PM Turnbull and FM Bishop should not sign anything at COP21, Paris.

Poland strengthening their coal mining industry.

Ewa Kopacz (Source)
As the World heads toward the COP21 Gabfest and its side show, the Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF) 2015, Poland's PM Ewa Kopacz says she does not consider nuclear energy a priority and is instead focused on strengthening the coal mining industry. (LINK)
Ewa Kopacz's comments indicated a U-turn from earlier government plans to add nuclear energy to Poland's mix in the coming years. 
Kopacz said Monday that Poland's energy security is based on coal. The country has rich deposits of the fossil fuel and the government is currently taking steps to preserve coal mines and thousands of jobs in the industry.
A few years ago, the government, then led by Donald Tusk, said a nuclear plant would be built and be operational around 2020. 
Treasury Minister Adam Czerwinski said Monday it is still not known where and how the nuclear plant would be built.

The 10 commandments of cults vs. religions and why Islam is a cult.

Cult-like Islam is flourishing
1) CULT: Single, unquestioned leader who makes all the rules, with no accountability to peers, a presbytery, a chapter, or co-leaders.

Prophet is sole authority and makes all the rules, because god speaks only to him.

2) CULT: Cohabitation. Members often live in a group or commune, often with the leader.

Cult has grown too big, but this was certainly the case when it was starting.

3) CULT: Isolation. Members are often not allowed to interact/socialize with outsiders, and frequently are required to separate from their friends and families.

Muslims are not permited to take non believers as friends, 
islam must supplant family, race, nationality as the principal focus of life.

4) CULT: Coercion. Coercive recruitment methods, often including sleep deprivation, withholding of food or bathroom breaks, locking the initiate in a room with a succession of people hammering in the group’s ideas. Essentially, these are classic brainwashing techniques.

Mohamed used violence and threat of death to intimidate people into joining his cult, 
so does islamic state which is pure islam.

5) CULT: Repetition. Members are told what to believe on a daily basis, with intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to hold members. The few items that distinguish that cult are repeated endlessly.

Muslims must pray 5 times per day. 
The same jihadist supremacist rubbish is the focus of its sermons.

6) CULT: Exclusiveness. Initiates are often told that only “select” members of the cult will reach the ultimate goal. This is incentive to stay and to be more dedicated to the cult.

Only members who are killed in the act of jihad are guaranteed entry to heaven. 
They receive 72 virgins and a palace the size of a country as reward.

7) CULT: Bread trails. The dogma is fed to the initiate in small pieces, and gaining more knowledge about the dogma requires a greater commitment to the organization.

The koran is ordered by length of verse and has early passages abrogated
 (overruled by later passages), so its true meaning is concealed.

8) CULT: Alienation. Adherents are encouraged or even bullied into thinking in terms of “us versus them” with total alienation from “them.”

Islam divides the world in the house of peace for muslims and the house of war for non believers.

9) CULT: Seclusion. Members are often not allowed to leave the cult or even the cult compound. Even temporary excursions among outsiders are done in pairs or in groups with a trusted member always present.

The penalty for leaving islam is death.

10) CULT: Totalitarian. Cults ask significantly more time and money from their adherents, often asking for a person’s life savings to progress in the organization. They are usually totalitarian and demand that the individual give themselves up to the organization or theology.

Waging jihad or supporting jihad is obligatory for all muslims. 
The greater jihad is psychological preparation for the lesser jihad 
which are acts of martyrdom.

It doesn’t get more totalitarian than islam.

Canada's Harper last stand-out before Paris COP21

Previously, this blog wrote of Christopher Monckton's address about the push to get rid of Tony Abbott. Part of that address:

David King (The Climate Change Task Force ) was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it. 
The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. 
Tony Abbott has gone, replaced by Ex- Goldman Sachs' Malcolm Turnbull.

Harper and Trudeau (Canadian Press)
It is a week and a half to the Canadian Elections on 19th October. Ezra Levant of Rebel Media writes:

Have you been watching this federal election campaign? It’s a gong show. 
I don’t mean the politicians. I mean the media. Their conduct is outrageous. They’re not even pretending to be neutral. They’ve got a full-blown case of Harper Derangement Syndrome.
I call them the "Media Party", because they’re campaigning full-tilt. You just can’t trust them to give you the straight news. 
Take the CBC. Thomas Mulcair has promised the CBC a $115 million bonus if he wins. Justin Trudeau has outbid him. He says he’ll pay the CBC $150 million if he wins. So CBC journalists are campaigning against Harper like their own jobs depend on it.
CTV and Global TV aren’t much better. 
The Polls so far are showing Harper (Conservative) and Trudeau (Liberal) about equal according to CBC News
The CBC Poll Tracker shows the Liberals and Conservatives virtually tied, with 32.5 and 32.3 per cent support, respectively. The New Democrats stand at 25 per cent, followed by the Greens at 4.7 per cent. The Bloc Québécois has increased its support to 20.4 per cent in Quebec. 
The overall trends continue to suggest the NDP is dropping in support. Compared to a week ago, the NDP finds itself 2.7 points lower in the Poll Tracker. The Liberals are up by a more modest 1.7 points, while the Conservatives increased by 0.5 points. 
The Conservatives still have the advantage in the seat count, thanks to how their vote breaks down regionally. They would likely win 109 to 155 seats if an election were held today, with the Liberals set to take 91 to 130 seats and the NDP winning between 75 and 108 seats. The Bloc could win between one and eight seats, and the Greens one.