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:

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate

For Prager U, Bjørn Lomborg explains the Paris climate agreement.

For an example, when the committee asked the head of the US Environmental agency:  
Exactly how much will this treaty reduce global temperatures? 
she could not, or would not say.

As Bjørn says:
The agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming. 
The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. Bjørn Lomborg explains.

Green Energy is a Charter for Crooks and Liars

Energy & Environmental
Newsletter - 16/1/17

AWED Friends:

The next edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is available.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:
Watch for an update of this national story in the Wall Street Journal!
Excellent short video: The “F” Word

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Dr. Happer Interview (on Climate Change, etc.)

John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen advocate

Copyright © 2017; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

The two truthful expression that the Alarmists hate are
  • There has been a twenty-year plateau in global warming; and
  • Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Twenty-Year Plateau in Global Warming

Roy Spencer, PhD,  points out on his UAH blog that

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998 
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Energy & Environmental Newsletter -2/1/17

AWED Friends:

Welcome to 2017 and the year’s first edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter! It looks like it will be an exciting time, so fasten your seat belt...

There continues to be so many Trump-related happenings, that I’ve set up two new Newsletter sections: Trump & Energy, and Trump & Global Warming.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Obsolete Calculations of Cost of Carbon (an extremely important matter!)

Some of the more interesting Energy articles in this issue are:
Outstanding podcast on Energy and Climate Change
Excellent Study: Energy Deregulation
Cutting the Crap at DOE (See new Newsletter section on Trump & Energy)

I hope that you have an enjoyable and rewarding New Year...

John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen advocate

Saturday, 31 December 2016

Reducing Sunspot activity indicates Global COOLING.

From NASA: (link)

Sunspot Numbers

In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.
The "sunspot number" is then given by the sum of the number of individual sunspots and ten times the number of groups. Since most sunspot groups have, on average, about ten spots, this formula for counting sunspots gives reliable numbers even when the observing conditions are less than ideal and small spots are hard to see. Monthly averages (updated monthly) of the sunspot numbers (181 kb JPEG image), (307 kb pdf-file), (62 kb text file) show that the number of sunspots visible on the sun waxes and wanes with an approximate 11-year cycle.

Environmental Consultant 
Edmund Contoski, writing for the Heartland blog, says that The Sun, Not CO2, Determines our Climate.
The chart [above] clearly shows a weakening trend of sunspots in solar cycles 22, 23 and 24. These are the latest in a sequence dating from 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. Note that the peak of solar cycle 24, which occurred in 2014, is only about half that of solar cycle 22, which peaked about 1989. 
This portends global cooling—not global warming. Sunspots are dwindling to lows not seen in 200 years. In 2008, during the solar minimum of cycle 23, there were 266 days with no sunspots. This is considered a very deep solar minimum. You can check out pictures of sunspots—or their absence—day after day for recent years at (Source - bold added)

After explaining Sunspot activity, Edmund Contoski continues
After about 210 years, sunspot cycles “crash” or almost entirely die out, and the earth can cool dramatically. These unusually cold periods last several decades. Of greatest concern to us is the Maunder Minimum, which ran from 1645 to 1715. Below is a chart that shows the paucity of sunspots during this time. Some years had no sunspots at all. 

The astronomer Sporer reported only 50 sunspots during a 30-year period, compared to 40,000 to 50,000 typical for that length of time. 
Since the Maunder Minimum, a less extreme but still significantly below-average period of cooler temperatures occurred during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830), also shown on the graph. 
At least as far back as 2007—before Cycle 23 had bottomed—a Russian solar physicist, predicted what we are seeing now. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, noting that solar irradiance had already begun to fall, said a slow decline in temperatures would begin as early as 2012-2015 and lead to a deep freeze in 2050-2060 that will last about fifty years. 
Read More HERE 

Tuesday, 27 December 2016

Sorry State of Australian Science Curriculum

Letter from Dr Judy Ryan
re the
Sorry State of the 
Australian Science Curriculum

Dear Minister Simon Birmingham and all Educators,

We are writing to you to express our deep concern re the politicisation and subsequent deterioration of  Australia’s  Science  Curriculum.

Our students are now ranked lower by comparison to developing nations. They are also ranked lower than their peers from three decades earlier. What has gone wrong?

The evidence below indicates that almost three generations of Australians have been subjected to a subversive, pseudo-science based curriculum.

The nature in equilibrium, or Gaia, theory was not only disproven but discredited in the 70’s http://

It was replaced by Chaos theory for dynamical natural systems. It states that “In the disciplines of Meteorology .....and Biology.......Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.

One only has to look at the 2009 Australian High School Science curriculum to realise that the disproven Gaia is still the order of the day in our country  To quote the bottom two lines from page 6 “Understanding systems provides the basis for appreciating the nature of equilibrium and interdependence.”

Australia now is in the situation where our politicians, the middle generation, do not have the required science background to adequately form policies on environmental issues. Hence, they rely on expert advice. Unfortunately, they have been deceived by Lysenko-like pseudo-scientists. 

 As independent scientists, we state this “ Global Cooling…. aka Global Warming….aka Climate Change is the defining issue of our time, because it is the greatest crime ever attempted against humanity.”   

It's time to fix the science curriculum across Australia. Our democracy is under threat. The average lifespans of great civilisations are only about 200 years. The progression goes like this; From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
The evidence indicates that the Australian population is in the apathy to dependence state.   We are in clear danger of slipping back into bondage via the environmental laws imposed by the corrupted IPCC and UNFCCC.

Our current predicament is exemplified by an event some of us ‘older generation’ Independent Scientists attended at the ANU Climate Change Institute.

The whole event was based on a series of surveys.  It seems that  Universities now interpret the weakest form of research, surveys, as something that can be used to influence policies and people.  Yet, in earlier times surveys were regarded as nothing more than a possible catalyst for a more robust form of investigation.

Our impression was that the whole event was a thinly disguised attempt to influence the vote of attendees towards a totalitarian form of Government at the next election.The younger panelists obviously think they have acquired knowledge via their University Education. But as discussed above, all they have been taught is pseudo-science.

Meanwhile, the silent majority of independently thinking voters out there in the real world voted in a climate skeptic Tony Abbott in Australia in 2010.  As was predicted the United Nations was successful in replacing Tony Abbott with their choice puppet Prime Minister.

But, times have changed since 2013. Climate sceptic Donald Trump has been overwhelmingly voted in as President of  America. In Australia, One Nation and other Independent parties are growing from strength to strength. We the voters successfully expressed our displeasure at the 2016 Federal elections. 

We will accept and aid ethical beginner politicians to take over the running of our nation.  We prefer that to the evil stability of the lookalike socialist tending major parties.  When we get our ethical new management team, we will start immediately to clean out the pseudo-scientists from our Universities and Scientific Institutions, just as Trump is now doing in America we will clean up the Australian National Science curriculum so that our students can once again experience the joy of learning real science.

In closing, Dr Curtis did not actually attend this event. But is happy to co-sign with me. She has been fighting, what in our humble opinion, is fraudulent academic behaviour, for more than twenty years. I for only six. If there is anything we have said that you think is untrue then please respond. We will investigate and if necessary clarify or rectify any inaccuracies.

Respectfully yours
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis

Members: World Wide Web of Independent Scientists

Saturday, 24 December 2016

A Political Fad vs National Security; A US story

Posted here to show the AGW madness is world-wide.

John Droz Jr

Get some hot chocolate and a few nutritious cookies. Now sit by the fire in your favorite chair, and mull over this Enchanting tale.

The fundamental questions we need accurate answers for are: 

  1. How does our national energy policy come about? 
  2. Is the way we’re generating it now, really in our best interest? 

The answers to those critical questions are:

1) Science is all about assisting us solving technical problems. Since our national energy policy is a highly technical matter, it should be solidly based on Science. However, instead our national energy policy has been written by lobbyists. These lobbyists represent clients: 
a) who have economic interests at stake, and/or  
b who are promoting political agendas. Any connection of our energy policy with Science is accidental. 

2) No. Lobbyist-driven technical policies benefit their clients — but are typically not good for our citizens, our economy, our military, or our environment. For example, costs end up being more than projected, benefits turn out to be less than promised, and unintended liabilities are often frequent and severe. None of these consequences should be a surprise, as they are the expected results of unscientific solutions. 

The point is that the methodology of coming up with our national technical policies is fundamentally flawed. An instructive case is what transpired with the large Desert Wind/Amazon project, currently being built in North Carolina. Here are some unsurprising results of a self-serving lobbyistdriven energy policy… 

1 - The current administration’s position appears to be that promotion of industrial wind energy is more important than maintaining our military missions, assuring military readiness, and/or protecting the lives of military personnel. 
Sample Evidence #1: See Congressman Randy Forbes persistent and insightful questions (actual page 19, but labelled as page 15) to senior Obama staff officials in front of the House Armed Services Committee. Their answers make it quite clear as to what their priorities were. 
Sample Evidence #2: The DoD Wind Clearinghouse has been given 5000+ cases where there is some type of conflict between a proposed wind project and a military facility. Only once was a wind project cancelled. 
2 - The primary justification of this aggressive wind energy promotion is that wind energy supposedly plays an integral role in reducing climate change. However, this marketing claim does not hold up under careful scrutiny. The fact is that there is zero scientific proof that wind energy makes any consequential contribution to alleviating climate change. Zero scientific proof. 

3 - Few people have any idea what a ROTHR facility is. Even fewer are aware of the critical roles that the ROTHR facility has in protecting our national security — on several key fronts, like terrorism. (BTW this Virginia facility is one of only two in the continental US.) 

4 - In its zeal to promote renewable energy, the current administration appears to knowingly have agreed to compromise our national security. They were aware of the serious potential risks the Desert Wind/Amazon project could have on the ROTHR facility, yet choose to play them down. 

5 - In their one-sided commitment to promote wind energy, the current administration did not take some reasonable precautions in this situation, that would have better protected our national security. 
Example #1: Did they insist that the Desert Wind project be moved just 20+ miles away to protect our national security? No. (This might have been a nuisance to the developer, but not an insurmountable problem. Who should be inconvenienced here: the wind developer or our military?) 
Example #2: Did they have any provisions in the DoD-Developer Agreement that would automatically shut down nearby wind turbines that caused a major disruption in the ROTHR signal? 

6 - This wind project was pushed through the NC “approval” process without any NC statewide wind energy rules or regulations being applied. (That situation has since been corrected with passed NC legislation.) 

7 - Due to this lack of oversight, a lawsuit was filed that the state should require that reasonable wind energy rules and regulation be applied to this wind project, and not let this wind project get approved on a technicality. 
The state attorney general (and now Governor-elect) Roy Cooper fought against independent environmental tests (and a military assessment) being done, and he won. So consider that irony: Governor-elect Cooper is the highest “progressive” person in NC, yet he led the fight against a reasonable environmental assessment to protect the state’s ecosystems. 
8 - The main argument made by the promoters of this wind project is that it will be an economic boon to a depressed rural area of North Carolina. 
Fact 1: our electrical energy sources are not selected due to the economics on a host community. Instead our electrical energy sources are chosen based on their reliability, true cost to ratepayers & taxpayers, proximity to demand centers, dispatchability, etc. Wind energy fairs poorly on all such metrics — which is why wind proponents try the sleight-of-hand tactic to talk instead about local taxes, local lease payments, etc. 
Fact 2: the reality is that the Desert Wind project is likely to be a substantial negative financial drain on local economies. Our webpage references the projections of independent experts who have no dog in the fight. Using their numbers results in the conclusion that the two affected NC communities could well have a net loss of $11± Million, per year! So if local economics is really of paramount importance, why don’t wind proponents ever show an objective, NET local financial impact

9 - The electricity economics of this project were so bad, that all three NC utility companies (Duke, Progress and Dominion) declined to buy its power. The NC Democrat Governor at the time (following the national lead), interceded and tried to cajole the utilities to accept this higher-cost electricity. To their credit, they refused to pay for this expensive electricity. 
The only way this project survived was because Amazon stepped in to buy the expensive Desert Wind electricity. Even though Amazon was alerted to the national security issue involved here, they chose to look away. This appears to be a classic example of greenwashing. 

10-It is with the knowledge of these matters that the leaders of the NC state legislature have formally appealed to the new Trump administration to intervene here to defend our military and to protect our national security. 
Congressman Walter Jones (co-chair of the House Armed Services Committee) wrote a good cover letter in support of the NC Legislators’ excellent correspondence. (We are hoping that our two senators will join in to present a united front.) Has there ever been an example where state legislative leaders have officially gone on record to ask the federal government to come in and shut down a wind project? No! Kudos to the NC state legislators for taking a principled stand on a VERY important matter. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Note From John Droz Jr:

This information is to the best of my knowledge. If any errors are found here, please send supporting documentation to the undersigned, and suitable corrections will be made in an update. 
john droz, jr “      aaprjohn (at) northnet (dot) org”           12/21/16