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

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

Mirrors and Mazes: A new guide to the climate debate.

Dr Howard Brady.

Dr Howard Brady is an Australian, who worked as an Antarctic scientist. He was on four expeditions to Antarctica with the US Office of Polar Programs.

• Member of the Explorers Club of New York
• Member of the Australian Microscope and Microanalysis Society
• Member of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences

He has published scientific articles in periodicals such as:
• Journal of Glaciology
• Nature Magazine
• Science Magazine

He was a contributor to Antarctic Geoscience, a book released by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Science in 1982.
Special Award

In 2011 Dr Brady was awarded the Distinguished Alumnus Scientist of the Year by Northern Illinois University for contributions to climate research and to the community at large.

…Dr Brady is internationally recognised for his identification and naming of several species of algae currently used to help trace the climate history of Antarctica. Professor Ross Powell observes the continuing influence of Dr Brady’s research. The notable Antarctic marine diatom fossil called Thalassiosira torokina, which Dr Brady named as part of his M.Sc. thesis, is currently being studied by Professor Reed Scherer’s students.

Dr Brady has written a new book on the climate debate entitled "Mirrors and Mazes. A guide through the climate debate." (link)
Canberra U3A is now taking enrolments for Dr Howard Brady's short (and sceptical) course on the climate debate - open to everyone at no cost - one workshop (2 hours) per week for a month starting March 15th 2017.
Course Title: A Guide Through the Climate Debate
Contact: Dr Howard Brady on mirrorsandmazes@gmail.com


Dr Brady was interviewed by Chris Smith on the Alan Jones Breakfast show. Mp3 link here


Sunday, 29 January 2017

Why Temperature is not important.

Anthony Cox

Alarmists base their hysteria on temperature trends. Everything is getting hotter and the current temperature is hotter than it has ever been. It doesn’t matter that the temperature records which alarmists rely on are adjusted, homogenised and altered to show warming where often there is none or exaggerate warming which does occur or that whatever warming is occurring is unexceptional and natural.

However, apart from fabricated temperature records, there is another reason why alarmism is wrong in its reliance on phony temperature records.

The true measure of climate on Earth is the energy balance. Energy, primarily from the Sun, enters the atmosphere while energy leaves. Alarmism uses the diagram from Trenberth et al 2009 to show energy fluxes.


This KT diagram has manifest problems as this diagram shows:

The official energy movement based on KT incorporates many estimates and assumptions which are plainly wrong. But in addition to that alarmism ignores the Earth’s Energy balance as depicted by Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). OLR is the only way energy can leave the Earth and the record of OLR is a much better indicator of climate than any corrupted measure of temperature.


The data and further graphs of OLR can be seen at the NOAA site.

As temperature increases, more energy leaves the Earth. There is NO trapping of heat as alarmism claims and is based on. This is consistent with a basic law of physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SB). SB is:

E = sigma x T^4,where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K

Every surface which is above absolute zero emits radiation. The hotter the surface and the higher its temperature the more radiation is emitted by a power of 4. If the surface of the Earth or the atmosphere gets warmer it emits more radiation and cools. This a moderating effect which has kept the temperature of the Earth within a narrow range of temperature for millions of years:


Throughout the history of the Earth, the temperature range has been no more than 15ºC. Yet alarmists would have you believe that because humans are emitting a tiny amount of CO2 that the temperature on Earth will soon exceed the temperature of Venus! Mad.

Another aspect to the irrelevance of a global average temperature (GAT) is also related to SB. There has been considerable hysteria from the alarmists about temperature increase in the Arctic. Again this temperature increase has been perfectly normal and within natural variation. But even if the Arctic is heating up at a faster rate than the rest of the Earth that does not mean the Earth itself is heating up overall.

Again this is because of the difference between temperature and energy. As noted every surface above zero emits radiation but the amount of radiation emitted depends on the temperature. A colder temperature even if it has increased by more than a warmer temperature will still emit LESS radiation than the warmer temperature. This is again due to SB which shows the relationship between temperature and energy emitted is based on ^4: an increase in temperature increases the energy emitted to the power 4. For example, a temperature increase from 200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2. From 300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2. How can a 50K (50 C) rise in temperature cause such a difference in radiated power for different starting points? That’s the reality we live in and is easily expressed in mathematical form as T^4.

The alarmists fudge this fundamental point by concentrating on temperature. If the Arctic is increasing in temperature but the rest of the world is not by averaging the Arctic with the rest of the world the alarmists can still show an increasing temperature when there is no energy increase. In an important paper Pielke et al describe this effect:

[6] At its most tightly coupled, T is the radiative temperature of the Earth, in the sense that a portion of the radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere originates at the Earth’s surface. However, the outgoing longwave radiation is proportional to T4. A 1C increase in the polar latitudes in the winter, for example, would have much less of an effect on the change of longwave emission than a 1C increase in the tropics. The spatial distribution matters, whereas equation (1) ignores the consequences of this assumption. A more appropriate measure of radiatively significant surface
changes would be to evaluate the change of the global average of T4.

The alarmists get away with this trick of showing a higher GAT by adding all the temperatures then applying SB and the power ^4: (A + B)^4. The proper way of doing this is working out the radiation at each site then adding them together: A^4 + B^4.

For those interested in further analysis see: Luboš Motl.


The alarmists can show an increasing GAT while at the same time OLR is increasing and there is less energy on the Earth. It is a sleight of hand and deceit which underpins alarmism. Alarmism is literally built on hot air.

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

Rejoice in the Best Country in the world.

It's for ALL of us!
Tomorrow is Australia day. It is not Invasion Day.

Why we celebrate on the 26th January, doesn't really matter. It could have been on several other days, but, now, having decided years ago on this day, let's all celebrate our wonderful country.

It has been called invasion day. Let's examine that.

Australia Day is the official National Day of Australia. Celebrated annually on 26 January, it marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillip.
Imagine a fleet of dugout canoes from down-under went to Europe around the same time. 

At the moment, Europe is united. It may not be so soon.

See legend

However, in 1789, Europe was at war with itself. If an Australian fleet of dugout canoes invaded Europe, it would have found many warring nations.

Although many Europeans had visited Terra Australis before Governor Phillip planted the British Flag on 26/1/1788, Phillip was the first to claim the country.

And the country he claimed was, like Europe at that time, not one nation, but a continent of warring nations.

If you see the development of our wonderful country, in the ~230 years, it is probably unprecedented development. The indigenous population has benefited greatly from the advancement of this country.
In his Great Australia Day Breakfast address held in Queen’s Hall at the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Warren Mundine said indigenous Australians needed to "forgive Australia as a nation" and permit themselves to "love their country (and) take pride in Australia's successes and achievement". -Link

Mr. Mundine spoke of reconciliation involving both the wrongdoer and the wronged taking steps towards each other to restore or establish a relationship after a conflict or estrangement.
“It seems to me” he said, “that when we talk about reconciliation in the context of Indigenous affairs, we talk a lot about the sorry part but we don’t talk much about the forgiveness part.”
He said that for real reconciliation, “Indigenous people also need to forgive.”

Professor David Flint writes (speccie):


Be warned. In recent years it has become the custom to spoil what would otherwise be an enjoyable Australia Day by putting on some sort of stunt to demand we change our national day, our flag or our constitution. Some extremists even threaten that they’ll burn the flag while these days there is now the sad possibility that some alien elements will commit a terrorist outrage. 
Each Australia day, the Australians who hate our wonderful country, as Professor Flint says:
put on some sort of stunt to demand we change our national day, our flag or our constitution.
All I ask is that the Australia haters either leave our National Day alone. If you cannot leave Australia Day alone, then please leave Australia.


Tuesday, 24 January 2017

The Arrogance of the Main Stream Media

Professor Tim Ball


Tim Ball addresses a meeting at Australian Parliament House
8/11/2016
The arrogance of the main stream, and even too much of the medium stream media, believe they have a divine right. It is the same. They are panicking because the internet and Trumps’s use of Twitter has and is bypassing them completely. They accelerated their own demise by not accepting the responsibility that comes with being the Fifth Estate. 

It is sad and pathetic to see even Fox trying to defend people like the New York Times journalist who claimed the MLK bust was removed. They mumbled about it being an honest mistake. No, it wasn’t. 


It was a deliberate story to turn most people, but especially African Americans, against Trump. His objective is confirmed by the grossly inadequate research. All he had to ask was “Where is the bust?” When called out he produced the cynical, insulting, and inadequate explanation that somebody stood in front of the statue. The apology was not to the people or the President, but to other journalists because they all stick together as the Fox people proved.  The story was fake news, pure and simple. 

The difference was Trump and his people called out the story in a way no politician would dare do before. The media action and reaction was precisely the type of behaviour the public rejected in the election and why they turned to the new sources.

For some 300 years, the mainstream media has been the mouthpiece for the power elite as William Cowper’s 1772 poem attests.


How shall I speak of thee or thy power address,
Thou God of our idolatry, the Press?
By thee, religion, liberty and laws
Exert their influence and advance their cause;
By thee worse plagues than Pharaoh’s land befell,
Diffused, make earth the vestibule of Hell;
Thou fountain, at which drink the good and wise;
Thou ever-bubbling spring of endless lies;
Like Eden’s dead probationary tree,

Knowledge of good and evil is from thee. 



We are witnessing history as that “power” is virtually gone. As I have written, it is the final stage of the American Revolution as the people now have access to information. There was a brief stage in the Revolutionary when Pamphlets became the information that by passed the mainstream media, but it didn’t last. 

= = = = = = = 

Amazon

Tim's CV is here. Tim's latest book, ‘Human Caused Global Warming. The Biggest Deception in History’ is an abbreviated, illustrated, version for those overwhelmed by the science. Its production was triggered by the exploitation of the fact that 80 percent of the population are arts-oriented.

Robert Merlin Carter: 9 March 1942 – 19 January 2016

It is hard to believe that it is a year since we lost Prof Bob Carter.

Robert Merlin Carter: 9 March 1942 – 19 January 2016


It is equally hard to realise that it will be a year, tomorrow, since Bob's funeral.

Bob was one of the world's greats in fighting the inaccuracies of the global man-made climate change hoax. As a tribute to Bob, Australian Climate Sceptics re-publishes some of one of the last works in which he was involved.
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
why_scientists_-_front_cover-260

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015
The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. 

A webpage for the book has been created here. The summary below is taken from the book's concluding chapter. You can read it for free, or buy a copy from the Heartland Store. A collection of reviews is here.
The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. 
Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias. 
Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals. 
In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions -- is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. 
The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades. 
In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability. 
Read the remainder HERE or buy a copy from the Heartland Store.



Monday, 23 January 2017

Find the Thug from Alberta's #WomensMarch


Yesterday RebelMedia Alberta bureau chief, Sheila Gunn Reid, was hit in the face by an NDP thug, right on the steps of the Alberta Legislature.

Sheila had gone there to report on a left-wing “#WomensMarch”. It was basically an NDP rally against Donald Trump. So: the usual professional protesters from the left.

Of course, the event was dominated by NDP men. One of them saw Sheila and recognized her from The Rebel.

He started arguing with her; then swearing at her; then he said he’d hit her — and then he did.

All while Sheila’s camera was rolling.

http://www.FindTheThug.com


Sunday, 22 January 2017

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions. Part 5 The Melbourne Terrorist Event

Anthony Cox 
So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him…. (ISIS Edict 2014)

The death toll from the Melbourne terrorist attack by a recent convert to Islam is at 5 and likely to rise. Many others were injured.

I have written before about the inadequacy of responses to Islamic attacks by police and the reporting of these attacks by the media. The pattern has been repeated this time. The police allowed the Muslim to enter the CBD of Melbourne, did not attempt to intercept the Muslim’s car and allowed him to perform wheelies while shouting Allahu Akbar before driving his car into pedestrians.


Police only shot the Muslim after he had run people down. This is almost identical to the hands-off approach police used during the Lindt café siege where the priority was not to inflame prejudice against Muslims (Operation Hammerhead).

The media reporting of the Melbourne terrorist attack has been similarly deficient and deceptive. The ABC and the other left wing media, Fairfax, Guardian etc, have not even mentioned that the terrorist was Muslim. All attention has been on his troubled, drug-addicted background. This is despite what a friend of the Muslim is reported as saying:
He was a great guy but ice destroyed him. Then he converted to Muslim and changed very quickly. For over a month he's been on edge,' he told Daily Mail Australia.'He stabbed his brother in the face and beat up his poor mother I knew this bloke really well... I'm not sticking up for him whatsoever and he deserves to be punished for what he's done, but that evil drug ice was the cause of this.
So, even when his friend notes he changed very quickly after converting, the media still maintains the lie that this was just a drug outburst. All the evidence points to the opposite. All the previous lone wolf attacks were similarly dismissed as the product of mental disease or some other personal defect; anything other than Islam.

In a recent essay, Michael Davis looks at this tendency in the media and by our leaders to avoid blaming Islam for these atrocities. Davis says about a previous lone wolf Muslim terrorist:
But Artan’s isn’t really such a hot take on radical Islam. In fact, it fits into an alarmingly common pattern. Commentators have noted that, despite invoking the Islamic State before his attack and following methods laid out in its magazine Dabiq, he appears to have no ties to any formal terrorist cell. That’s good! Right? It shows that Isis’s network isn’t as pervasive as we once thought, or as they’d like us to think. Small-scale, lone-wolf attackers like Artan prove that Isis & Co. don’t have the means to organise and coordinate attacks on the scale of 9/11 or Paris. And that’s probably true. But it shouldn’t come as a relief. On the contrary: it proves the threat facing our civilisation is far direr than we might’ve thought.
The point about lone wolves is that a lone wolf can be any Muslim, and can occur any time. Not all the lone wolf attacks have been by drug addicts. The Fort Hood massacre was by a doctor. The London bombing involved teachers and social workers. The Boston Marathon massacre by students. The San Bernardino attack by a married couple, the husband a Health Inspector. The Fort Lauderdale attack by an ex-soldier.
In all these instances some aspect of the terrorist’s character is emphasised by the media and politicians so that the dominant characteristic of the terrorist, that he or she is a Muslim, can be ignored.

There are 2 issues here. Why do the media and politician avoid the obvious; and why does Islam attract such people.

The reason why the media and politicians avoid the issue is a combination of cowardice and condescension towards the general population, the deplorables. But in effect, they are betraying not only the deplorables but also Western values and society, the best type of society in the world.

The reason why Islam attracts such people is shown by a Muslim. Shadi Hamid writes about Islamic Exceptionalism. Hamid says:
In both theory and practice, Islam has been, is and will continue to be resistant to secularization. In other words, Islam is different. It is fundamentally different than other major religions…..Islam becomes a distinct political project. Islamism only makes sense in opposition to something else - that is, secularism. For the first time Muslims, and Islamists in particular, feel the need to say, "We are different. We are affirming (or reaffirming) our Islamic identity." It becomes a very conscious political act.
Islam gives an identity, purpose and meaning to its adherents. It also makes them feel superior to their enemy: secular society and non-Muslims - tawaghit/infidels-. That is the real mentality at work here not drug addiction: losers and outcasts like the Melbourne Muslim join Islam to obtain affirmation and justification. As part of Islam they have no communal responsibility for either secular society or the non-Muslims living in it. Before Islam drug addicts did not perpetrate atrocities, that capacity was created by Islam which attracts both losers, malcontents and functioning people and converts them into haters of non-Muslims. Only Islam does that. The Melbourne Muslim and all the other lone wolfs demonstrated that psychology of hatred and their method of expressing this hatred was entirely consistent with the edict by ISIS.


This was a Muslim operation in method and motivation; and once again our media and political class has failed us.