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, 31 August 2016

Climate Science is NOT Settled

A Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding Secretary of “Clexit” 
31 August 2016

For at least a decade we have been told by the UN/IPCC, by most government media and officials, by many politicians, and by the Green “charities” and their media friends that “the science is settled”. 

We are lectured by Hollywood stars, failed politicians and billionaire speculators that anyone who opposes the World War on Carbon Dioxide is ignorant, mischievous or supporting some hidden vested interest. We endure calls for an end to free speech for climate sceptics, smearing with derogatory terms like “denier”, and even aggressive punishments like dismissal and legal action against sceptics for speaking out. The new low is the use of anti-racketeer legislation against sceptics.
We notice the sudden and unexplained denial of pre-booked sceptic conference facilities and the steadfast refusal of alarmists to debate facts and issues.

Why are they so afraid of words? Surely this is a sign that their facts are shonky and their arguments are feeble? They fear they are losing the confidence of the public.
The tide is turning, and informed opposition is growing. It is time for the thinking media to give sceptical evidence and conclusions a fair go in the court of public opinion.
In a short time with no costly international meetings and very little publicity, Clexit has gathered the

Sunday, 28 August 2016

US Biofuels increase rather than decrease CO2 emissions.

An article published in Climate Change under the title

Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use
DeCicco, J.M., Liu, D.Y., Heo, J. et al. Climatic Change (2016). doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4

comes to the conclusion that:
Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions.
Uh-oh! Another nail in the coffin of the AGW hoax,


The use of liquid biofuels has expanded over the past decade in response to policies such as the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that promote their use for transportation. One rationale is the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that only production-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be tallied when comparing them to fossil fuels. This assumption is embedded in the lifecycle analysis (LCA) modeling used to justify and administer such policies. LCA studies have often found that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel offer at least modest net GHG reductions relative to petroleum fuels. Data over the period of RFS expansion enable empirical assessment of net CO2 emission effects. This analysis evaluates the direct carbon exchanges (both emissions and uptake) between the atmosphere and the U.S. vehicle-fuel system (motor vehicles and the physical supply chain for motor fuels) over 2005–2013. While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2 emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions. 

Glickson, consensus and hysteria: the state of alarmism

Anthony Cox

Andrew Glikson is implacable in his alarmism. His latest effort is to organise 154 fellow academics, all on the public teat, to write a letter pleading to shut down coal and basically Australia’s economy.

The letter is a cliché of alarmist platitudes and shibboleths. One such cliché is misanthropy. Glikson and his fellow alarmists agree with Turnbull’s ridiculous statement that human influence on Earth is a massive science experiment with catastrophic results. Glikson is like other alarmists who compare human influence to 4 atomic bombs going off every second. Why do alarmists never consider human influence as good and beneficial. We are always bad in their eyes and a blight on the Earth.

Another cliché is vanity. The idea that humans can control, even in a negative way, the climate of Earth is akin to King Canute wondering down to hold back the waves. Human CO2 is negligible compared with natural CO2 and human energy miniscule compared to planetary and solar forces. Even if you accept alarmism’s estimate of the forcing effect of the increase in CO2 (and that humans are responsible for this increase, which they are not) of 3.7W/m^2 accumulating over the next century this is dwarfed by just one daily natural process of condensation which William C Gilbert in his excellent paper notes involves fluxes exceeding 1000W/m^2. The idea that anything humans do can match natural process is delusional and manifestly wrong.

Glikson and his fellow alarmists have no shame. One of the other academics on the list is Chris

Saturday, 27 August 2016

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions part 4

Anthony Cox

I was listening to talk-back recently and the issue of relative population increase between Muslims and Non-Muslims was being discussed. This is an aspect of Islam which is rarely discussed by the political and media class.

In Australia the comparison is easily resolved by looking at Census data. In Australia in 1981 the Australian population was 14.927 million; in 1991 17.284 million and at the time of the 2011 Census 22.34 million.

The rate of increase in the Australian population between 1981 and 1991 was 16%. The rate of increase between 1991 and 2011 was 29%.

The Australian population of Muslims in 1981 was 76,792. In 1991 the Muslim population was 147,487 and in 2011, 476,291.

The rate of increase in the Muslim population in Australia between 1981 and 1991 was 92%. The rate of increase between 1991 and 2011 was 223%.

The fertility rate of Muslim women in Australia is considerably greater than women from other groups:

Clearly the rate of Muslim population increase in Australia greatly exceeds the rate of population increase in the non-Muslim population. The disparity in the respective rates means that if they continue Australia will have a predominantly Muslim population in a few decades.

Globally what is happening in Australia is also happening in other Western nations which have Muslim sub-populations. A video presentation shows how the higher rate of Muslim population compared to non-Muslim means that most Western nations in Europe will become Muslim dominant nations in, like Australia, a few decades. The US is similarly affected.

The facts in this video have been objected to by some parts of the media including the BBC, the English equivalent of the ABC. This alleged rebuttal of Islam being portrayed as the fasting growing population in the world today drew upon research by Pew, one of the premier population data collecting organisations in the world. But Pew’s own research confirms that Islam is the fastest growing group in the world. Pew concludes:

While the world’s population is projected to grow 35% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 73%

This misrepresentation of Islamic demographics is a classic example of how the media and our political class misunderstand Islam.

If Islam is to change in a reformation recommended by Ayaan Hirsi Aly in her new book, Heretic, at the very minimum one of the 3 essential changes Islam must undergo is in respect of the role of women. The status in Islam of women is below men and as Muslim leaders preach women are for reproducing more Muslims.

The difficulty of changing the status of women in Islam is compounded by the conformity of women themselves to this paradigm which defines their status. I discuss this in part 1 of this series. Muslim women must be educated and given equal rights. Part of this process is to liberate them from the shackles of Islam most notably in the symbolic clothing they wear. The symbolic aspect of Islamic clothing is egregiously ignored by the political and media class who simplistically and erroneously confuse Islamic clothing worn by Muslim women as an expression of their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The clothing worn by Islamic women is literally a fertility totem.


All items in this series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Part 4

Thursday, 25 August 2016

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions: Part 3

Anthony Cox

The media and the police commonly describes Muslim perpetrators of violence as disturbed or otherwise mentally unsound. This is done to prevent a connection with Islam, to expedite the myth that Islam is a peaceful religion and, as I described in part 2, to prevent any backlash against Muslims.

But is Muslim violence/terrorism a product of insanity or a fundamental ideological difference between the West and Islam?

Islamic advocates claim to love death more than non-Muslims love life but eschatological ideologies have existed before. And many ideologies have sacrifice at their centre. These characteristics therefore do mean the Muslim killer is mad even if they kill themselves.

In Islam, it is not how one lives one’s life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies. It is

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions part 2.

Anthony Cox

A recent attack has occurred in Townsville when a French national stabbed and killed one and seriously wounded 2 others while shouting Allahu Akbar.

Despite the regularity of this happening in attacks by Muslims the authorities and the media persist in shrouding this straightforward context with claims of possible mental illness, motive unknown or blatant declarations that the event has nothing to do with Islam.

This pattern of disavowal of what is overwhelmingly obvious follows a dreary and predictable pattern which is described here. Dominating the response to terrorist attacks by the media and the police is a concern for the Muslim community. When the Muslim Monis invaded the Lindt café and eventually killed Tori Johnson the police immediately set up a task-force called Operation Hammerhead. Operation Hammerhead was designed to prevent any backlash against the Muslim community. This was the paramount concern by the police hierarchy.

There was no backlash except a growing political disenchantment with the deceit and betrayal by the political and media class. The Lindt café terrorist event sums this up perfectly: as the lives of the

Tuesday, 23 August 2016

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions

Anthony Cox

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them ( Karl Popper).

The media coverage of Islam in Australia with a few exceptions defends Islam by defaulting to a number of stock positions such as:
  1. Terrorism is not part of Islam
  2. Terrorists are not part of Islam
  3. Islam is a religion of peace
  4. Most Muslims are peaceful, moderate and support Western values
  5. Halal certification is not a problem
  6. Islam is not taking over
  7. The birth rate in Islam is not more than non-Muslims.
  8. Criticising Islam will make things worse
  9. The West has caused terrorism
  10. Women wear the burqa willingly
  11.  Islam does not need to change

And so on.

I have written a number of essays on Islam and I plan to look at some of the common myths or excuses given by the media and politicians to explain Islam to the wider community.

A common myth is that Islamic women willingly wear the burqa and other Islamic clothing. On general principles it makes no sense to assume a rational person would willingly subscribe to and subject themselves to such restrictions as imposed by Islamic dress.

While it is true many Muslim women not only wear such restrictive and defining clothing but advocate it, does this make it right or even an act of free will?

Islam is defined by its oppression of women. In many Islamic nations women have no status at all. The psychological effect of this lack of rights is profound. Many studies have found that when humans are subject to oppression they often take on and support their oppressors. This effect is known as the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Stockholm Syndrome is related to the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments where an analysis of responses to authority was made. The conclusions these studies provided is that people conform to authority even when it is against their and other person’s interests and even unethical. This can explain why Muslim women not only accept their lack of status and power within Islam but also why Islamic women cooperate in that oppression against other women in such barbaric practises as female genital mutilation and honour killings which are frequent in Islamic societies.

It also explains why women willingly accept the restriction of Islamic clothing. The Muslim clothing is a separating and defining aspect of Islam. It works as a uniform, distinguishing the Islamic woman, marking her as a possession of Islam and separate from Western values.

France has banned the burqa as have other nations. Apart from the practical aspect of security and identification the banning of the burqa has great symbolic value. The presence of a burqa on a Western street echoes what Turkish leader Erdoğan said about Mosques:

That is a burqa asserts that Islam is present along with Islamic values. Just as Sharia, halal and other Islamic values are an intrusion by Islam into Western society so is the burqa.

Regardless of whether Muslim women willingly wear the burqa, which seems both unlikely and irrational, it remains an assault on Western values. For this reason the burqa and other Islamic dress should be banned in Western society.
- - - - - 
All items in this series:

Part 2