“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” –
You'd have to have a heart as cold and as unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic expedition(AAE) stuck 'in our own experiment', as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson's original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat the dogs. I'm not sure there were any on this expedition, so they'd probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters. Forced to wait a year to be rescued, Sir Douglas later recalled, several of my toes commence to blacken and fester near the tips. Now there's a man who is serious about reducing his footprint.Moving on from Turney's debacle, Steyn then talks of Al Gore's earlier expedition on the Akademik Shokalskiy.
Anyway as part of his 'Living on thin ice' campaign, Al Gore's own luxury Antarctic Vessel boasted a lineup of celebrity cruisers unseen since the 1979 season finale of the Love Boat– among them the actor Tommy Lee Jones, the pop star Jason Mraz, the airline entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson, the director of the Titanic James Cameron, and the Bangladeshi minister of forests Somebody Wossname. If Voyage of the Gored had been a conventional disaster movie like the Poseidon Adventure, the Bangladeshi guy would have been the first to drown, leaving only the noble-winning climatologist (Miley Cyrus) and the Maverick tree ring researcher (Ben Affleck) to twerk their way through the ice to safety. Instead and very regrettably, the SS Gore made it safely home and it fell to Prof Turney's ship to play the role of our generations' Titanic.
Tom calls for a "change in tenor of the debate."
The climate controversy is one of the world’s most important discussions. At stake are billions of dollars, countless jobs, and, if U.N. representatives now meeting in Peru are right, the fate of the global environment itself. We need leaders in science, engineering, economics and public policy to contribute to the debate without fear of retribution.
Billions raining down on the hoax.Sadly, the opposite is happening. Because the issue is poisoned with personal attacks, censorship, illogic and even death threats, many of the world’s leading experts are too frightened to comment publicly. They don’t want to be falsely accused.
Unfortunately, this voice of reason is ignore by the other side of the debate.For example, when advocates are criticized as “leftist, foreign-funded eco-nuts” or “right-wing, oil-funded deniers,” philosophers should explain, “That is irrelevant. Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them. All that matters is the validity of their arguments.” It is an error in reasoning to dismiss someone’s assertions because of suspected vested interests.And calling someone an eco-nut or a denier is an “ad hominem” logical fallacy, “against the man,” instead of the idea, a tactic that has no place in rational discourse.
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.OK, as far as it goes. They blow it when they continue:
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong.Uh-oh. Now these "Skeptical Inquirers" are trying to claim the high ground and intimating that those of us on the realist side of the debate -
Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Jennifer Marohasy,Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.Consider the reports from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC )
The letter called for the news media to stop allowing doubters of climate change to use the label "skeptic" and instead label them deniers, based on the root "denial," which was defined as "the a priorirejection of ideas without objective consideration."Get up of your ARS, "friends" and do some checking of your own.
"Denialist" is one of the most common labels that gets attached to people who don't accept the evidence for climate change. And frankly, there are a fair number of people in that camp who don't accept any of the evidence that's been generated.We accept the "evidence of climate change." Do the "friends?"
IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David (Deming) was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails. (link)
The collapsing oil price that is reshaping the global economy could derail the green energy revolution by making renewable power sources prohibitively bad value, experts have warned.However, cheap energy from coal has not had the same effect of keeping prices down.
A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.
“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”Although the Independent says: "the consequences for ...... the climate could be even more radical," it has been shown that, for this century atmospheric CO2 has risen by almost 30%, there has been a slight fall in global temperature.
The adverse effects on health of persons susceptible to noise from wind farms are examined and a hypothesis, the concept of heightened noise zones (pressure variations), as a marker for cause and effect is advanced. A sound level of LAeq 32 dB outside a residence and above an individual’s threshold of hearing inside the home are identified as markers for serious adverse health effects affecting susceptible individuals.Daniel Shepherd and Rex Billington, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2011 31: 389, DOI: 10.1177/0270467611417841http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/5/389
Wind turbine noise is annoying and has been linked to increased levels of psychological distress, stress, difficulty falling asleep and sleep interruption. For these reasons, there is a need for competently designed noise standards to safeguard community health and well- being.
Wind turbines generate low-frequency sounds that affect the ear. The ear is superficially similar to a microphone, converting mechanical sound waves into electrical signals, but does this by complex physiologic processes. Serious misconceptions about low-frequency sound and the ear have resulted from a failure to consider in detail how the ear works. Although the cells that provide hearing are insensitive to infrasound, other sensory cells in the ear are much more sensitive, which can be demonstrated by electrical recordings. Responses to infrasound reach the brain through pathways that do not involve conscious hearing but instead may produce sensations of fullness, pressure or tinnitus, or have no sensation.
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate. The bulk of the evidence takes the form of thousands of adverse event reports. There is also a small amount of systematically gathered data. The adverse event reports provide compelling evidence of the seriousness of the problems and of causation in this case because of their volume, the ease of observing exposure and outcome incidence, and case-crossover data.Just a small sample; but remember there are 21 peer-reviewed papers listed on
|Would you buy a falsified AGW hypothesis from this man?|
Picture Question: Look at the picture of Lord Monckton above. Would you buy a used car from this man?The Morons are using an ad-hominem about Lord Monckton's medical condition. I challenge the morons to debate Lord Monckton. After the debate, the Morons would crawl off defeated and shamed.
why do billionaires secretly have to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into denialist propaganda?Why do they used the pejorative and false term "deniers." The REAL deniers are the Alarmists. (LINK) Tom Steyer vainly donated $58 million trying to prop up support for the falsified CAGW hypothesis during US mid-term Elections.
It takes a lot of money to keep a false idea alive. This is just another Wall of Money. Yet despite that, skeptics are winning battles, unwinding schemes, shrinking the Green gravy trains, and spreading the word. It’s amazing what a small group of volunteers and barely funded skeptics can achieve with only their wits and truth on their side.And again:
Why are there no Climate Scientists for theTake your pick!
denialsceptical side? Name One
Attention: News Editors, Political, Science and Environment Reporters
TIME FOR THE UN TO GET OUT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Negotiators and Secretary General continue to ignore scientists and
Ottawa, Canada, December 13, 2014: “Climate change negotiators in Lima, Peru seemed oblivious to the findings
of the UN’s ongoing My World survey about what the people of the world really want the agency to focus on,”
said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
“The seven million people polled so far indicate that, in comparison with issues such as education, health care,
jobs, and energy, they care very little about climate change.”
“Perhaps most out of touch with reality is the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself who on Wednesday
asserted that climate change remains his ‘top priority’," continued Harris.
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James
Cook University in Australia explained, “That ‘action taken on climate change’ rates dead last among the 16
priorities the public wants to see action on is not surprising. They understand that the remote possibility of
human activity contributing to climate problems decades from now is unimportant in comparison with the very
real problems faced by the world’s poor today.
“During the UN Climate Change Conferences in 2007, 2009, and 2012, hundreds of climate experts endorsed open
letters (see here) to Mr. Ban explaining his mistakes on the science,” said Carter. “Among the scientific luminaries
signing the letters were Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists; Freeman J. Dyson of
Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies; Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor of natural sciences, Warsaw; and
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“The Secretary General did not even acknowledge receipt of our open letters, let alone address any of our points,”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor asked, “How can anyone take
Mr. Ban seriously after he asserted on Tuesday that ’Science has not only spoken – it is shouting from the rooftops.
Our planet has a fever – and it is getting hotter every day.’
“Not only is climate science highly uncertain but there has been no statistically significant global warming for 18
years despite a 9% rise in carbon dioxide to a still miniscule 0.04% of our atmosphere,” said Dunleavy. “As the
scientists explained in their 2012 open letter to Mr. Ban, ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have
caused the extreme weather of the past few years.’”
In his 2014 book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”, ICSC science advisory board member and former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Tim Ball summed up the situation well: “Climate change has
happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of
climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the
biggest deception in history.”
“The UN must get out of the climate field entirely,” said Ball. “In particular, their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change have always been biased political instruments and should
be immediately disbanded. Then the agency should focus only on issues the people of the world deem important.”
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of
climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate
issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC
encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes
and impacts of climate change.
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to,
“carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar
power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.
For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org,
or contact any of the following ICSC representatives:
In North America:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
ICSC Webpage: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393
Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne
Former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811
Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268
ICSC Webpage: http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394
In New Zealand:
Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
Phone: +64 9 4863859 - Mobile: +64 274836688