We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
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

Monday, 31 August 2015

Scepticism and burden of Proof


Don Aitken on his blog has a thought provoking piece titled:

Am I a sceptic? I think so.


Describing his scepticism, Don says:
What is it to be sceptical about something? My own meaning is that where I am not sure about something I think is important, and can’t reasonably be sure, I am sceptical about claims. That doesn’t mean I think it’s wrong, whatever it is; it is simply that I am not in a position to make a proper judgment. Some other person or organisation may be sure, but that is no real help to me. I need to make up my own mind about it, and for the moment I can’t. Therefore I don’t accept the proposition, at least for the moment. Quine would call it the state of ‘suspended judgment’, one of non-belief rather than of disbelief.
Don then moved on to " a neat little series of thoughts on the issue of scepticism on the Fabius Maximus website..."  by Marcello Truzzi (bold added)
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact”. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis … he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. (Marcello Truzzi, ‘On Pseudo-Skepticism’, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987)


The Shrill have turned science on its head. They claim:
There is evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
In that one sentence, there are several inaccuracies:

Rising Temperatures:



It hasn’t warmed since 1998. Longer according to McKitrick’s peer reviewed paper
Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. 

..caused by the increased CO2. 

During this time atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing.

There is no proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing runaway (or any) global warming.

Back to Truzzi (via Aitken)

Evidence is, then, a matter of degree, and not having enough results in a claimant’s not satisfying the burden of proof. It does not mean disconfirmation of the claim. The proof is insubstantial, and the claim is unaccepted rather than refuted. The claimant is, in effect, told either to give up or go back to find stronger evidence and arguments for a possible later day in the court of science. As a practical matter, an unproved fact is a non-fact. 
There is a lot of Popper and Khun in all this, which Truzzi concedes, but the Truzzi essay is well worth reading by those who think of themselves as ‘sceptics’, because he brings all of the various insights into a clear and sensible summary.

Don Aitken concludes:

I am also sceptical that anyone will do anything to change the orthodoxy, either, which is a bit sad. Wegener’s theory of ‘continental drift’ was pooh-poohed by geologists almost everywhere, but a generation later (after his death) was resurrected as ‘plate tectonics’, and is now accepted as good theory. It may take a generation before ‘climate change’ theory is finally buried, at least in the form that humans are responsible for global climate. We’ll have something else to worry about by then, and I won’t be writing posts like this — or at all! 

Read more of both Aitken and Truzzi at Don Aitken.com 

Saturday, 29 August 2015

More Climate Alarmism Refuted

Source: Tallbloke

MODERN SCIENCE REFUTES GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM


John Hinderaker writing for Power Line: (bold added)
It isn’t quite true to say that the science is settled–climate science is in its infancy, and we have only a poor understanding of the Earth’s climate. Just about every proposition is controversial. But we are very close to being able to say that, as to global warming alarmism, the debate is over and the alarmists have lost. (I mean, of course, the scientific debate, not the political one, which never had much to do with science in the first place.)
Read More: Power Line

= = = = = = = = = = =

ICSC Chief Tom Harris for the Washington Times:

Deceptive temperature record claims

Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter. 
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.  
........... 
As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”
Read More Here

= = = = = = = = = = =



Judith Curry, writing on her blog Climate etc reviews a new paper by the UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) team.

The paper:
  • Rasmus E. Benestad, 
  • Dana Nuccitelli, 
  • Stephan Lewandowsky,
  •   
  • Katharine Hayhoe
  • Hans Olav Hygen
  • Rob van Dorland
  • John Cook     
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Judith Curry writes "The conceits of consensus": (bold added)
RealClimate has an entertaining post on the paper, Let’s learn from mistakes, where we learn that this paper was rejected by five journals before being published by Theoretical and Applied Climatology.  I guess the real lesson from this paper is that you can get any kind of twaddle published, if you keep trying and submit it to different journals.
Read More at Climate Etc

Britain's solar boom over


Political Editor of the UK Telegraph, writes
Britain's solar boom is over after ministers announced they would offer virtually no subsidies for people to install panels on their homes. 
In a surprise move, ministers on Thursday said that they plan to slash the amount of money given to families who put solar panels on their homes. 
Under the new proposals, the amount paid to homeowners under the “feed-in tariff” from next year will fall by nearly 90 per cent. Experts said that it will lower the payments to households by around £192  (AU$ 412) a year.
Solar subsidies are a virtual reverse Robin Hood effect; the Rich robbing the poor:
Critics say the scheme, which was heavily pushed by energy firms, enables wealthy families to rake in subsidies paid for by many who are already struggling with their energy bills. 
Renewables are really not viable without subsidies.
Last week, a source at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) told the Telegraph: “[Energy secretary Amber Rudd] is determined to get a grip of these out-of-control subsidies and make sure that hardworking billpayers are getting a fair deal.” Decc did not respond to a request to clarify or confirm the comments.


Thursday, 27 August 2015

UN IPCC -an alarmist organisation

Mad Men of Climate Alarmism
Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #34
IPCC is alarmist
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) says

Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement:
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change."
He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.

However,  SS is wrong when they say Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.. The IPCC in their PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK (Para 2) and again on their page on Organisation History:
"...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation 



Anthony Cox writes

IPCC is alarmist

See items 1, 106, 110 (tipping points) As much as they can, that’s their business. 

As Jay Leno said: 
According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet. 
But seriously alarmism is exactly that: exaggerated, hyperbolic, emotional, half-true, not true. 

Schneider set the tone with his infamous advice about selling the message. His double ethical bind doesn’t exist; as a scientist if he has to think about telling the truth he isn’t a scientist; he was an advocate full stop. 

They’re all advocates with their dreadful, always wrong predictions like Flannery, or their odious comparisons, deniers are worse than Nazis from Hamilton

Alarmists like Suzuki want to jail sceptics

Alarmists think anyone who disagrees with AGW is insane and needs to be treated

Alarmists want to spend other people’s money, abolish capitalism and reduce population

Alarmists have to invoke “scary scenarios”, to quote Schneider, because their solutions to this non-existent problem are themselves so alarming. 

In technical terms the alarmism of AGW is seen in its estimates of climate sensitivity (see items 7, 34, 101)

Because alarmists use the wrong statistical methods they conclude temperature can go up forever (see items 30, 73, 91, 110). This is wrong.


Source

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Increasing CO2 has little to no heating effect

The Shrill at work.
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #30


"Increasing CO2 has little to no effect"The strong CO2 effect has been observed by many different measurements.

Why the Shrill via people like UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) imagine that human's emissions of carbon dioxide have anything to do with the climate is an exercise in hubristic nonsense, which seems to be the Shrill and the Green's greatest talent.

NZCSC write in
CLIMATE TRUTH SNIPPETS


Why is it that mostly chemists seem to understand the behaviour of carbon dioxide whilst even professors of physics appear incapable of grasping the basics of thermodynamics?

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/Nature%20controls%20CO2%20levels.pdf
In every 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2. Of those humans produce just one. That the UN IPCC claim that one (1) molecule of CO2 in 85,800 molecules of air causes catastrophic warming while the remaining 32 molecules of Nature's identical CO2 do not is insanity.

Temporarily suspending science by assuming the UN radiative back-warning 'theory' of global warming is valid. Purely for purposes of illustration one can calculate an indicative impact of human production of CO2 on rising temperature.

 Use relevant assumptions widely acknowledged world-wide:
  • CO2's theoretical maximum share of the greenhouse gas theory's effect is 3% (water vapour is 95%)
  • Total human production of CO2 is 3% of Earth's annual production (UN IPCC figure), and
  • Using temperature increase of 0.8°C since 1860 - close to start of industrialisation and the end of Little Ice Age. 
Then human affect be: 0.8 × 0.03 × 0.03 = 0.0007ºC

These indicative calculations exaggerate the UN IPCC's theorised impacts of human CO2 because

Tuesday, 25 August 2015

The true cost of wind energy is higher than most cost estimates calculate


A report prepared for the Institute of Political Economy at UTAH State University titled


WHAT IS THE TRUE COST OF ENERGY? 

This report explores the true cost of producing electricity from wind power. Rather than creating a new cost estimate, we analyze the findings of prominent cost studies by experts in the energy field. Each study includes different factors in its estimate of the cost of wind power. We break down each of these factors and explain the significance of each. These factors include: capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, capacity factor, transmission costs, baseload cycling, social and environmental costs, and the cost of government subsidies. Other factors are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless add to the true cost of wind power. Such factors include: opportunity cost of taxpayer dollars, reduced reliability of the grid, and higher electricity prices. 

A detailed report that comes to the following conclusion:

CONCLUSION

The true cost of wind energy is higher than most cost estimates calculate. Mandates requiring the use of wind energy increase electricity costs for consumers, and subsidies mask the actual cost of doing so. RPS require intermittent renewable energy to exist, but at the expense of utilities and consumers. The PTC makes wind power cheaper for utilities and consumers, but at the expense of taxpayers. Through such policies, U.S. policymakers have essentially decided that electricity consumers will have wind power, even if it is more expensive. The cost of this decision has fallen to U.S. taxpayers and consumers of electricity. When weighing the costs and benefits of wind power, not including all of the hidden costs makes wind power appear to be a more attractive option than it actually is. Energy policy decisions, however, should be based on a more complete estimate of the cost of wind energy.

Monday, 24 August 2015

Politicians, Scientists use ambiguous, non scientific, non-evidence based, terminology. ALP may have a fraudulent ideology.


In an email to Federal MP Mark Butler, Shadow Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Dr Judy Ryan and her associate Marjorie Curtis question MP Butler following a Canberra Community Forum.

We recently had the pleasure of hearing you speak at the Canberra Community Forum. The title for the Forum was “We Need Action on Climate Change”.  In the interests of scientific integrity, honesty and transparency we will call it “Human Caused CO2 Global Warming” (HCCO2GW) in this public letter. 

The reason we feel we can do this is because you conceded that it should be described as such during the evening. In our opinion, the term “climate change” is ambiguous, misleading and based on political ideology rather than any scientific evidence or hypothesis.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to ask you two questions. I will now address my question. Retired Geologist, Aert Driessen, has written to you separately regarding his question.

 Suffice to say here, I informed you of the fact that at the previous Canberra Community Forum in