All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

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

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

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

Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Day 7 - 31st December 2015 New Year's Eve

Day 6 - 30 November 2015

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

Dr Tim Ball shows how "climate change" pushers skew data to get results they want

  • How The IPCC only look at human causes; and
  • How insignificant are those causes.

Only Human Causes

Most people don’t know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considers human causes of global warming. 
This is critical because it is impossible to determine human causes if you don’t know or understand natural causes. It was done deliberately to ensure they could prove ”scientifically” the political message that human CO2 was causing disastrous global warming.

Insignificant CO2 

In fact, the natural variation in water vapor exceeds the possible effect of the human contribution of CO2 to any greenhouse effect. They include solar radiation (insolation), but that is not possible, humans do not alter the heat and light emitted by the Sun.
Tim has a great analogy to describe the contribution of human CO2.
The analogy I used years ago is that it is like saying my car is not running properly. To save time and money I am going to ignore the engine, the transmission, or the wheels, and concentrate on a nut on the right rear wheel (CO2). 
I am going to narrow it further by looking at one thread on the nut, which is the human portion of CO2.

A great piece. Read more at THEREBEL

Another great read from Tim Ball is his latest book

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science

available from


Desperate Climate Alarmists Attack Skeptics

Larry Bell, in his latest column for Newsmax, under the above heading points out that although -

the climate hadn’t warmed over 19 years prior to the run-up to that conference, feverish rhetoric certainly did. Yale Professor Timothy Snyder’s September New York Times op-ed titled “The Next Genocide” compared those who doubted dangerous man-made climate change with a Nazi commander slaughtering a Jewish baby. 

Larry notes that a Democrat Senator attempted to launch a congressional witch hunt against climate alarm skeptics.

He requested that universities turn over documents about grants, congressional testimony and other activities involving seven dangerously doubting scientists who have testified at climate hearings. 
Larry talks of the RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) letter, Jagdish Shukla, a professor of climate dynamics at George Mason University, and 19 other academics sent to POTUS Obama. Then he notes that Shukla's own organisation received $63 million since 2001  from taxpayers in the form of grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA.

What’s more, a huge amount of that generous IGES non-profit, tax-exempt largess went into Shukla family pockets. According to tax filings, together with his “business manager” and wife Anastasia and “assistant business manager/assistant to the president” daughter Sonia they drew $5.6 million in compensation since 2001 (not including Sonia’s unreported earnings). 

People Who live in Glass Houses

The sting in the tail from Larry:
Meanwhile, as satellites show no statistical warming for nearly two decades despite rising CO2 levels while overheated climate models have gone berserk, transparent agendas of glass house residents who attack alarm skeptics warrant reverse scrutiny. 

Read More at Newsmax (Link)

Day 5 - 29 December 2015

Tuesday, 22 December 2015

Paris Climate Conference Agrees on Sustainable Fantasy


ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris has written a piece published in PJ Media with above title.

Christiana Figueres, Ban Ki-moon, Laurent Fabius, President François Hollande.
The Delegates put on a great act celebrating the agreement, and that was reported by the MSM, eg

Tom Harris likens their delusion (was it delusions, or was it false celebration?) to Peter Pan in Neverland:
There, with the help of fairy dust, Peter Pan can fly, and he teaches others to overcome their common sense and soar as well. Peter claims greatness, is able to feel danger when it is near, and even has the ability to imagine things into existence. In fact, there is almost nothing the hero of Neverland cannot do -- yet in order to maintain such powers, Peter must stay childlike and forget everything he learns about what happens in the real world.
Tom then compares the COP21 fiasco with J M Barrie's writings:
The script for much of this year’s UN COP21 climate conference, held in Paris during the first two weeks of December, could have come directly out of Barrie’s book. The UN believes they can sense climate danger decades in advance, a power that requires forgetting that every prior prediction they made turned out to be wrong. They imagine that today’s global climate models (GCM), simulations that utterly failed to forecast the current 18-year “pause” in global warming, provide lawmakers with the “unequivocal” knowledge they need to enact trillion-dollar policies to limit planetary temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. 
To back up such extraordinary claims, they tell us that there is an “overwhelming consensus” of scientists who agree with their position. This statement requires that they imagine thousands of well-qualified skeptic scientists out of existence, or imagining that they constitute a tiny minority that isn’t worth their time.
Oh! NO! Not the false 97% consensus. Put 97% consensus into the search function of this blog and you will be amazed that the Shrill still rely on any of those flawed papers purporting to support this scurrilous series of science fiction papers published in peer review journals.

Then Tom writes of the counter meeting held by the scientists not dependant on government funding.

“A Day of Examining the Data”

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released a report titled “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.” The report was authored by climatologist Dr. Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Arizona, geologist Dr. Robert Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, and physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and NIPCC founder. 
The report refutes most of the UN proclamations. For example, the NIPCC report states:
  • “There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate.”
  • “Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming lay outside normal natural variability.”
  • “No evidence exists that … [a future warming of 2°C] would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being.”
  • “No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”
  • “GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to CO2.”
  • “Significant correlations exist between climate … and solar activity over the past few hundred years … Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.”
  • “Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at ‘unnatural’ rates.”
  • “Sea-level rise is not accelerating.”
  • “No convincing relationship has been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.”

Tuesday, 15 December 2015

The (Watered Down?) COP21 Agreement explained

Various people have examined the COP21 agreement including
Finally the Wall Street Journal's article

Summarised ( by Joe Bast)

* nothing coming out of Paris will have any impact on the climate
* whatever new commitments the agreement contains are not specific or enforceable
* still no requirements for transparency and independent confirmation of emission reductions
* goals are far in the future, long after current politicians are gone
* this is more about income redistribution than climate

All worth reading, but perhaps the easiest quick read was by 

Doug Proctor on Tallbloke's WorkShop (Link)

1. Everybody gets to do what he wants to do, without repercussions other than official notes in the media of progress vis-a-vis what he said.
2. Nothing has to be done that “threatens” food production. Not “reduces”, but threatens. This should allow cutting down forests and the slash-and-burn style of agriculture, and exempt agricultural practices, including beef production, from carbon-taxes, fuel surcharges or the need to make them less CO2 heavy.
3. Financing is neither fixed, nor firm, but voluntary and without a timeframe. Financing is still at the stage of ‘determining’ what others may need. There is no “SHALL” involved with collection or redistribution of funds.
4. Developed countries have to produce data on what they are doing as to emissions reduction. Developing countries don’t have to do so, only if they want to.
5. No tracking of emissions claims is permissible if the host country finds the questioning intrusive or offensive.
6. The Convention is going to appoint two “Champions” for 2-year terms (overlapping 1 year) to run around the world and talk to others about doing their bit. My bet: Obama and Merckel, once they are out of office.
7. The next global “stocktake” will take place in 2023. I couldn’t find a date for the next COP meeting of equivalence to this December 2015 Paris meeting.
8. The Agreement will come into ‘force’ after 16 April 2016 OR when 55 Parties accounting for at least 55% of global emissions sign the agreement. China is at 28%, India at 6% and the Rest of the World small Parties at 30%. The ROC have no reason not to sign. All they need is China.
9. Cheating has been big. Anti-“double accounting” rules, whereby British firms pay the Brazillians to plant trees of carbon-offset credits will no longer allow Brazil to claim those same trees in their emissions reduction claims, have had to be imposed because there was cheating everywhere and you couldn’t believe the numbers.
10. Surprise! Surprise! After signing any Party can bow out in 3 years, effective 1 year later. Shorter than the Kyoto Agreement! By mid-2020 anyone can be out prior to the next big conflab.
Do as you plan on doing or end up doing. No sweat. No money committed or flowing for the time being. We’re gonna get a couple of celebrities to talk it up and have grand photo-ops. Don’t worry about measuring performance success officially until 2023. If you or your electorates or other power groups get really annoyed, you can opt-out in three years, long before you are held to account for what you said today.
Except for the half-billion dollars these jokers just spent (of our tax money), and the social licence they gave each other to raise taxes and redistribute economic activity within their countries, there is nothing in this to provide comfort for the alarmists. No sense of urgency, no sense that the world is about to die/fry. The “last chance to save the planet” is now 2023.

Monday, 14 December 2015

Wind power just does not cut it

Tony Abbott told the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) that there was to be no money for windfarms. It was called "invest," but you should surely get a return on an investment. There will be no return on propping up the wind farm industry.

The new Turnbull administration foolishly has reversed that decision.

Under the new mandate, signed by Mr Hunt and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann on December 3, the $10 billion fund will be allowed to invest in wind projects, as long as they incorporate "emerging and innovative" methods.  (Source)
Dr Dennis Jensen, graduated from Monash University with a PhD in Materials Science and Physics and has worked for the CSIRO as a scientist. Jensen, a member of Turnbull's parliamentary party, disagrees:
"I think that's a bad decision, to be quite frank. 
Wind power just does not cut it, and they pretend that they're economically competitive but then they acknowledge that without things like RETs and renewable energy targets and also subsidies, there wouldn't be any more wind turbines built."

The disembodied skeletal remains of 37 abandoned wind turbines.
The rusty remnants were located on a 100-acre site that was once
the Kamaoa Wind Farm.
. (Source)
A friend of this blog mentioned the deserted Kamaoa Wind Farm at South Point, Hawaii. What a black spot on the landscape. How can true environmentalists support these ugly remnants of a failed fuel source?
South Point is known for its sheer sea cliffs, its strong ocean currents, its open pasturelands, and its whipping winds. But the constant bluster wasn’t enough to keep the Kamaoa Wind Farm going… on Friday (in April 2012), out of the original 37, there was only one left standing. (Source)
Since the windfarm opened in 1987, it has become something of an obsession for Waiohinu resident Lee Terry. Terry has spent quite a lot of time at the sight of the monumental dismantling, capturing the historic moments with his camera.The rest of the toppled windmills now lay in a mountainous heap on the ground, dotting the landscape like crashed aircraft, awaiting their fate as scrap metal. (source)

AN industry that cannot stand on its own feet without being propped up by subsidies is not an industry worth investing in. And surely, if that industry is a health hazard, more care should be taken when placing the wind farms. 

The data does however give an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences. With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found. The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur. Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 16 accidents per year from 1995-99 inclusive; 49 accidents per year from 2000-2004 inclusive; 108 accidents per year from 2005-09 inclusive, and 156 accidents per year from 2010-14 inclusive.

What about Health? 

 Turbine Noise:

It has been fairly well established that wind turbine noise can harm health. Like the AGW hoax there have been peer review papers supporting both sides of the debate, however the weight is swinging behind the fact that Wind Turbines cause harm to health. For example, this study published in Noise and Health:

Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health
We conclude that the noise emissions of IWTs disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4 km of the two IWT installations studied. Industrial wind turbine noise is a further source of environmental noise, with the potential to harm human health. Current regulations seem to be insufficient to adequately protect the human population living close to IWTs. Our research suggests that adverse effects are observed at distances even beyond 1 km. Further research is needed to determine at what distances risks become negligable, as well as to better estimate the portion of the population suffering from adverse effects at a given distance.
Was then PM Abbott right? Or is his back-stabber Chairman Mal right? Did Chairman Mal consider all aspects of this very inefficient creator of energy?

Consider some of the other disasters of the so-called green "renewable " energy schemes. (source Web Ecoist)

Tehachapi Wind Farms – Southern California, USA

Abandoned in 2002 but California Law does not demand their removal. Do the Green Environmentalists this this is a good looking environment. (Source :American Thinker)
From 1981 through 1985 federal and state tax subsidies in California were so great that wealthy investors could recover up to 50 percent of a wind turbine's cost. The lure of quick riches resulted in a flood of development using new and mostly untested wind turbines. By the end of 1986, when projects already underway in 1985 were completed, developers had installed nearly 15,000 wind turbines. These machines represented 1,200 MW of capacity worth US$2.4 billion in 1986 dollars. (source)
See also 10 Amazingly-Abandoned Renewable Energy Plants

Global Warming is a CROCK

Paul Joseph Watson completely annihilates the Man Made Global Warming Hoax in his latest video in just 7 minutes.

Paul says:
Global warming alarmists have been proven spectacularly wrong time and time again. So why should we believe them now?

He ends his video with:

The people pushing it (The AGW hoax) have been caught red-handed lying and faking data to prop up the crony and lucrative industry of the man made climate change hoax. 
AND Then:
The Paris climate summit is merely a PR exercise to try and revive the discredited fairy tale of man made climate change.

H/t Warwick H

Saturday, 12 December 2015

Scientific Consensus: An oxymoron.

Scientific Consensus: Is it a reality or is it a fantasy?

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.’ (Michael Crichton)

Michael Crichton: (See also The Science of Michael Crichton)
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” (Source - John Daly)

Was Michael correct? Is  Scientific Consensus an extremely pernicious development? Is  Scientific Consensus the first refuge of scoundrels? Is  Scientific Consensus a reality or an oxymoron?

Well, let's look at History.


Disinformation site UNskeptical UNScience (SS) falsely states that Realists are the reverse of Galileo:
Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo's belief-based critics in the Catholic Church.
Another failure for the Crook Mr Crook and his disinformation site.

The Realists used real world empirical data whilst the shrill, like John Cook's SS site, use models. The models, year by year depart further from the empirical data.  And like Galileo, the Realists are attacked by the adherents to the Church of Global Warming and are insultingly and falsely called "Climate Change Deniers."

Barry Marshall

Before Barry Marshall, the "Scientific Consensus" was that (Link Hopkins Medicine)
it was believed lifestyle factors, such as stress and diet caused ulcers. The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. 
But they (medical elite) were wrong - and did not want to hear the answer that was right.
 In 1981 Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: anti­biotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.  
Unable to make his case in studies with lab mice (because H. pylori affects only primates) and prohibited from experimenting on people, Marshall grew desperate. Finally he ran an experiment on the only human patient he could ethically recruit: himself. He took some H. pylori from the gut of an ailing patient, stirred it into a broth, and drank it. As the days passed, he developed gastritis, the precursor to an ulcer: He started vomiting, his breath began to stink, and he felt sick and exhausted. Back in the lab, he biopsied his own gut, culturing H. pylori and proving unequivocally that bacteria were the underlying cause of ulcers. (link)
So, against the prevailing 'scientific consensus' Marshall proved it wrong and he and his fellow researcher Robin Warren, the hospital pathologist, in 2005 were awarded  the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 

The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer........ But they (medical elite) were wrong - and did not want to hear the answer that was right.
Have a familiar ring to the AGW followers with a political bent whose major aim is a UN-led World Government?

As David Morrison writes (reviewing Powell's Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth):
The simple answer is that scientists accept theories when the data demand that they do so. However, the process is not simple, and there have been times when entire scientific communities pursued dead ends and persisted in error even in the face of transformative new data. (link)
AND there are times when the entire shrill scientific community deny the empirical data and rely on flawed models that have been shown to be erroneous.



1. general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion)

If a consensus means widespread agreement, how is it that 31000 scientists have signed the Petition Project?

If a consensus means widespread agreement, how is it that, although the handful of board members of the American Physical Society pledged their agreement to the Church Of Global Warming, an independent poll of the members found that it was roughly 50:50 for and against.

If there is widespread agreement, how is it that a true Nobel Prize winning scientist (unlike people like Michael Mann who have falsely claimed winning a Nobel) Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, who voted for POTUS Obama, now says Obama is dead wrong: (link)
Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him. 
But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.” 
“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained. 
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
 AND yet, the scoundrels pushing the falsified AGW hypothesis still cling to the consensus. Shame on them.