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

Monday, May 25, 2015



MAY 24th 2015

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray


The history of the greenhouse effect is given in Chapter 5 of my book at

The term arose when Fourier misinterpreted the heating  in de Saussure's Hot Box (a miniature greenhouse) as caused by reflection of internal infrared rays by the glass top.

He believed that the earth was heated by the ether but not by the sun. He thought all the heat from the sun was immediately lost by infra red.

He needed some extra heat, just for the tropics, and he speculated that water vapour might behave in a similar way to the hotbox glass cover

These views were adopted by Tyndall who measured resistance to passage of infra red radiation through a large number of gases, including carbon dioxide, and found that the absorption was small, but when he tested water vapour the effect was so large that the apparatus could not measure it.

He therefore concluded that Fourier’s idea that water vapour heated  the earth was plausible.

Both of them regarded radiation as a form of Heat which required a medium for its transfer. The ether was needed to permit its passage through space of radiant heat.

It was accepted that heat could only pass from a hot object to a cold object. This principle was the Second Law of Thermodynamics which also applied to complete systems. Its application to heat transfer was eventually explained as a passage of the mechanical energy which exists as random movement of atoms and molecules of all substances. The level of this movement is the temperature of the substance.

It eventually became evident that Heat of radiation is fundamentally different from the heat stored by ordinary objects. Maxwell, in 1873, postulated that all radiation, over a wide spectrum, is a wave motion consisting of alternate oscillating electrical and magnetic fields.

The energy E of radiation is obtained by the Stefan/ Bolzmann equation:-
E = CxT4

C is Stefan’s constant and T is the absolute Temperature (to the fourth degree of the emitting substance.  Notice that it is entirely determined by this temperature of the emitting substance.

The published derivations of the Stefan/Boltzmann law treat the emitting substance as a black body. This  does not imply that the equation appiies only to solids. Liquids and gases also consist of molecules in motion and they a;so emit radiation/ In addition real substances are not ideal black bodies, so the equation needs an additional emissivity factor. Planck derived an equation which provided the spectral distribution, after allowing for the quantum effects.

Radiation energy is converted to heat if it is absorbed by any suitable object. The temperature of that object is quite irrelevant. The speculation by some that radiation cannot be absorbed by an object whose temperature is less than that of the radiant emitter requires the absurd assumption that radiatio, is capable of detecting the temperature of distant objects before deciding whether they are fit to receive absorption. Such an assumption restores the need for a belief in the existence of an ether.

It is unfortunate that several dictionary definitions, physics textbooks and even school and university courses in physics fail to  make the distinction between heat that is transferred by mechanical action and radiant energy which only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a suitable body. This  confusion is mainly due to the time it has taken for the earlier concept of radiation as a form of heat which passess through the ether as a medium, to radiation which does not need a medium and has different properties from ordinary.

The Michelson Morley experiment of 1887 followed by Einstein’s relativity theory showed that the ether did not  exist and was unnecessary for the passage of radiation

Arrhenius, in 1897, no longer  believed in an ether but he foolishly ignored the advice of Fourier and Tyndall by using Langley’s primitive measurements of atmospheric absorption to assume that they related to atmospheric carbon dioxide. He failed to realise that Langley’s figures at that time did not include the main absorption bands of carbon dioxide, so Arrhenius’ calculations were for water vapour.

So the greenhouse effect does exist. 

Greenhouse gases, predominantly water vapour, do absorb infra red radiation from the earth, radiate the additional energy in all directions, including downwards and  so warm the earth. This effect must be very small as it has not been detected, despite the enormous effort that has been applied to try and find it.


Vincent Gray
New Zealand

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Saturday's News: Good for Realists; Bad for Alarmists.

Much news around that confirms the AGW scare is just that: an empty scare. Some of the stories:

From ex-NASA scientist Roy Spencer:

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”

One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere. 
The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.

From The Lancet:

A major study abstract published in the Lancet analyzed 74 million deaths from 384 locations in 13 countries from 1985 to 2012 and found that moderately cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather.  
From a story in London’s Guardian: 
“It’s often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heatwaves,” says lead author Dr. Antonio Gasparrini from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.  “Our findings, from an analysis of the largest dataset of temperature-related deaths ever collected, show that the majority of these deaths actually happen on moderately hot and cold days, with most deaths caused by moderately cold temperatures.”

 From WryHeat by Jonathan DuHamel


Climate alarmists put forth scary scenarios saying that carbon dioxide induced global warming is causing unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise which will drown our coastal cities and wipe out South Pacific Islands, but observational evidence shows there is no reason for alarm.
= = = =  

The Australian government has been monitoring sea level on Pacific islands with modern instruments since 1992. In the case of Tuvalu, they state, “If the depression of the 1998 cyclone is ignored, there was no change is sea level at Tuvalu between 1994 and 2009: 14 years. (See report of studies by Vincent Gray here.) 
Finally, new research by Kench et al. (2015) finds that these same South Pacific islands, rather than sinking beneath the waves, have in fact been growing.

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll

From The Daily Caller:

Former UN Lead Author: Global Warming Caused By ‘Natural Variations’ In Climate

Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author. 
Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century. 
What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Friday, May 22, 2015

COP21 - India and China hold out.

Australia's Foreign Minister, Ms Julie Bishop has an "Extravagant solution to a non-existent problem"

News.com.au reports that Foreign Minister Bishop announced that she will waste Australian Taxpayer's Money.
AUSTRALIA will contribute $200 million to a global fund to help poorer nations tackle climate change. 
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has announced the funding for the Green Climate Fund at the UN climate summit in Lima on Wednesday. The money will come out of the foreign aid budget. 
The fund will help developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
However Ms Bishop had a rider: (link)
Ms Bishop has said Australia would determine its actions on the basis of what other nations agreed to do. 
I hope that Ms Bishop is keeping up with the latest news. China is not signing on for years.
China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 

 India will not give up coal - coal that helped the developed world develop:

Indian Tells UN:
India has told a high-level energy meeting here that it will not be fair to expect it to move away from coal to meet energy requirements of millions of Indians, underscoring that coal will continue to remain the "mainstay" of its energy needs for the "foreseeable future. 
"Our energy challenge is truly huge. The numbers speak for themselves," said Minister for State for Power, Coal and New & Renewable Energy Piyush Goyal at the First Global Energy Ministerial SE4ALL Forum Meeting yesterday. 
India has 56 million homes or 280 million Indians, almost the size of the population of the US, who lack access to basic electricity and more than 500 million are still deprived of access to clean energy fuels, he said.
As the Man Made Climate Change "science" fails, the pushers of the hoax, the alarmists, are getting shriller.

WE hope the Abbott Government are listening and do not sign any "Kyoyo 2" agreements.

Submission to the Third party certification of food Enquiry

Submission by Anthony Cox

Halal means what is permissible under Sharia which is Islamic law. It does not just apply to foods and beverages but every aspect of life. If something is halal it is part of Islam. Making things, foods, actions etc halal means they become part of Islam.

Halal is the process by which Islam replaces the social, economic, political and legal structure of a host society.

Other ways Islam subsumes the host society are through the building of Mosques and visible symbols such as the burqa.

There are over 370 mosques in Australia which, per capita, is more than six times the number of Buddhist and Hindu temples. It is much more than the conventional (sic) religions such as Catholicism and Anglicanism. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated: 
A mosque is our barracks, the domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets and the faithful are our soldiers."
In 2010 France banned the burqa based on a Parliamentary Commission to Study the Wearing of the Full Veil in France. This Commission had found the burqa was an infringement of the principle of freedom, a symbol of subservience and a negation of the principle of equality.

In 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld France’s banning of the burqa. In addition to the principles found by France the ECHR also found the burqa was an an affront to the country's tenets of secularism and a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.
Other European nations have followed or plan to follow France’s lead in banning the burqa but a limited ban in Queensland has failed.

The building of Mosques and the wearing of the burqa as well as food certification are part of the halal process.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Section 116 has four limbs. The first three limbs prohibit the Commonwealth from making certain laws: laws "for establishing any religion"; laws "for imposing any religious observance"; and laws "for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". The fourth limb proscribes the imposition of religious tests to qualify for any Commonwealth office or public trust.

The first limb is of relevance to halal. In Attorney-General (Vic); Ex Rel Black v Commonwealth ("DOGS case") [1981] HCA 2; (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981) the High Court found that Section 116 did not encompass laws that benefit religions generally; it only proscribed laws that established a particular religion.

Islam is a particular religion. Halal certification is the process by which Islam establishes itself. In Quick and Garran (1995) [1901]. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Sydney: Legal Books. ISBN 1-86316-071-X establishment means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others."

Allowing halal to continue could be construed as conceding special favours, titles and advantages to Islam.

It would seem that there are 2 possible legal principles affronted by halal. The first is described by the French banning of the burqa. The second is described by S.116.

Anthony Cox
21 May 2015

= = = = = = = = = =


On 13 May 2015, the Senate referred an inquiry into third party certification of food to the Senate Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2015
Submissions close 31 July 2015.

Committee Secretariat contact:

Senate Standing Committees on Economics
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3540
Fax: +61 2 6277 5719


Vale John Harborne

Anthony Cox

I met John about 10 years ago. We shared a common scepticism of man-made global warming. John came from a solid science background. One of his 2 degrees was a BSc and he was a qualified metallurgist.

They don’t make metallurgists anymore and if John was typical when they did make them they made them well. One of his articles on the myth of clean coal was published at On Line Opinion. It’s excellent and I referred to it often.

After a distinguished career at BHP’s steel wire plant he continued his extensive network which included being affiliated with the Institution of Engineers Australia (MIEAust, CPEng) and the Institute of Materials Engineering Australasia (IMEA). He was very active on 14 technical committees of Standards Australia for 20 years, representing both BHP and IMEA, positions he relinquished only in early 2008.

He was a good man to have your back and when I didn’t seek his advice I usually regretted it.

After we struck up our friendship we had many adventures together at numerous talks, presentations and meetings. We met the famous and infamous and had a few narrow escapes. Such as the time I received an invitation to an energy meeting at Lake Macquarie City Council. LMCC was well known as a firm supporter of global warming and I thought I had better have back-up. John readily agreed.
The meeting was as we feared and we took a dressing down before escaping like two school-boys leaving the Principal’s office unscathed.

On another occasion John came with me to a talk I was giving at Singleton. I started well and was critiquing the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and its most recent report, AR4 which came out in 2007. The IPCC had published three previous reports, FAR in 1990, SAR in 1995 and TAR in 2000.

I had not sought advice from John before the talk and had somehow thought that AR4, stood for Annual Report 2007. On this basis I was making fun of the IPCC and its inability to count with only four annual reports being published in 17 years.

During the talk I looked down to see John with his head in his hands. In retrospect it was at this moment I lost the audience.

After the talk he came up to me and patted me on the back and said “never mind, there’s always next time”. I said “why”, and he replied AR4 stands for Assessment Report 4; FAR, First Assessment Report, SAR, Second Assessment Report and TAR, Third Assessment Report.

It was me who could not count not the IPCC.

I always took John’s advice thereafter.

John had an extensive list of email acquaintances and always sent out regular and interesting material. He remained active in PROBUS and whenever I rang him was his cheerful and thoughtful self.

He maintained his enthusiasm and interest in the science of global warming during his final illness.
John leaves his wife and 2 daughters, Cecily, Suzanne and Lyndal and grandchildren about whom he was very proud.

John was old school, a decent man and I’ll miss him.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Shrill Alarmists DENY Debunked Consensus

As COP21 in Paris approaches the shrill alarmists are losing the argument.
As COP21 approaches, the Shrill are getting shriller.

But wait! Aren't we all gonna fry? Wasn't last year hyped up as the hottest year ever?

No, this has been debunked so many times, Marc Morano has a whole page of debunking links on Climate Depot - 

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims

So, why are the Shrill Alarmists getting shriller? Shouldn't they be cheering because the planet is not facing the disaster that they prophesied? Or are they all, like James Hansen, working to a political agenda?

James Hansen, while he was working for NASA:GISS, was politically active:

Although Hansen has been a practicing scientist throughout his working life, he is also well known as a prominent environmental activist. He unashamedly promotes alarmism about the trivial levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, relating these to the prospects of environmental disaster, saying:“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal fired power plants are factories of death.” (link)
It is a political Agenda, not a environmental agenda, as UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres admitted in a  Press Release in February (Link)
"This is  probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. 
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Argumentum Ad Populum

The Shrill keep talking up the "scientific consensus" - an appeal to the majority.
In Philosophy 101, we learn about Argumentum Ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): 
The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude.  
There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
  • "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)  
  • "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Consensus is non Scientific 

Was Michael Chrichton a scientist?

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
On consensus, Chrichton wrote:
“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.”

Dr Gordon Fulks 

We mentioned James Hansen above. James has a very similar academic career to Dr Gordon Fulks. However, James entwined his science with politics. Gordon and James agree on many points. Hansen's senate address in 1988 was on the historically hottest day and,on purpose, they turned the air-con off. Hansen has been arrested at protests during his career with NASA:GISS.

On the other hand, astrophysicist Dr Gordon J Fulks, with his similar background  to James Hansen and others promoting the CAGW hoax, has never accepted ANY money to promote or oppose any theory because that is unethical, and he is considerably more experienced than most who have.

On consensus, recently Gordon wrote:

Science is NEVER about consensus and belief in any form.  Those who invoke such arguments are operating in the realm of politics and religion, probably because their science is weak.  We would never say that the earth is round because the majority of scientists believe it is.  We would simply produce a photo of the earth taken from the moon! 
For those who refuse to understand that science is not a consensus activity, I like to talk about Albert Einstein, Alfred Weggner, Harlen Bretz, Barry Marshall, and Robin Warren, among others. 
For those who think that the professional societies are the ultimate authority, I like to remind them that they are really labor unions looking out for the best financial interests of their members.  
Freeman Dyson, an English-born theoretical physicist and mathematician, wrote in his book Dreams of Earth and Sky 
In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.
It was ever thus.
Galileo Galilei “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” 
and yet the shrill are clinging to this last frail clay foot of their clay catastrophic climate claim

Consensus Debunked

The "97% consensus myth" is one of the most debunked myths of the shrill. This blog has written and recorded many refutations of the myth, including inter alia:-

Many others have exposed the flawed studies published to prop up the Consensus Myth and yet the Alarmists, the shrill keep pushing this flawed unscientific myth.

Will they ever revert to honesty?