Monday, 11 March 2013

Secret War on the West - Part I

This Post will be in two halves. Both based on the works of Dr Amy McGrath OAM.

Part 1 The Frauding of Votes;

Part 2 The Fabian Societies and Agenda 21.


Secret War on the West.  Part 1 - The Frauding of votes.

Dr Amy McGRATH, OAM, JP was educated at Telopea Park High School, Canberra and at Sydney University (BA Hons; MA; PhD, 1975). In 1970 and 1971 she travelled to the USA and the UK, respectively, on U.S. State Department and British Council grants, and in 1996 became the founding convenor of the H S Chapman Society, a body established to raise public awareness of the prevalence of electoral fraud in Australia.


 Dr. Amy McGrath OAM wrote two books –
·        The Forging of Votes 1995 about union fraud in the Federated Ironworkers Union, and 
·       The Frauding of Votes 1996 about parliamentary fraud.

In The Frauding of votes she wrote about the ‘user-friendly’ reforms of 1984 she said
“The Electoral Act has been degraded. The floodgates to manipulation and fraud have been opened. Democracy has been debauched. The electoral law is now an ass. The Courts of Disputed Returns today serve to protect fraud rather than democracy (Corrupt Elections- Experiences of Ballot Rigging H.S. Chapman Society 1997 p.116.)”

Investigative Journalist Bob Bottom wrote of one instance of the fraud:
How I became involved and concerned about electoral fraud  is an intriguing story in itself…Towards the end of 2000, following revelations in Queensland’s Courier Mail and parliamentary concern over electoral rorting within Australian Labor Party branches in Queensland, Premier Peter Beattie’s Queensland government instituted a judicial inquiry through the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission. Presided over by Justice Tom Shepherdson, the inquiry laid bare a plethora of material about ALP identities falsely enrolling for party pre-selection ballots and party plebiscites. 
Aside from reading about proceedings through the Courier Mail, and continuing exposures by the Courier Mail in its own right, the inquiry to me was simply another matter of public interest. Then during proceedings in November 2,000, a reference was made to alleged happenings on Bribie Island, about one hour’s drive north of Brisbane where my wife, Judy, and I happen to own a weekly newspaper, Island Mainland News 
That day two people came into my office at the newspaper and related an extraordinary story.They recalled that, prior to the 1989 Queensland state election, they had been contracted to deliver letters addressed to electors throughout Bribie Island, then with a population of about 12,000. It involved delivery to about 4,600 homes and unit complexes. What they found was that many of the letters were addressed to people at addresses that simply did not exist. 
But the Bribie Island episode was unprecedented. That delivery was not by Australia Post, whereby letters churned out from party headquarters or electorate officers are supplied to post offices and various  staff sort them into mail order for delivery  to Bribie Island. This mail was contracted out to private deliverers with all of the letters already pre-sorted into street address orderFor such a delivery the cost was less than one-eighth of what Australia Post would have charged. 
More interesting still, at that time, not even electoral authorities could assemble voter registrations in street order. Their computer capacity at that time was limited to assembling voter registrations in alphabetical order.”  
(NB:  The 584 letters that could not be delivered in that 1989 election were for vacant land along Pumicestone Passage, and the green side of Clayton Park, on Bribie Island. Wayne Swan was Queensland ALP secretary. When the ALP won the election, Wayne Gosse became Premier and Kevin Rudd, cabinet secretary.)
One can only wonder about the 110,000 extra voters added to the electoral rolls after GetUp (George Soros and Union Funded) challenged the closing of the rolls before the 2010 General Election.

So what if a person is registered at a false address, as describe above by Bob Bottom, and then that person votes at each polling place in that electorate. In my Electorate (Dobell) there are 56 polling Places.


Members for the seat have been
Thomson, C (ALP-Independent ALP) 2007–
Ticehurst, K (LP) 2001–2007
Lee, M (ALP) 1984–2001

In 2010, Mr. Craig Thomson won in 2007 with a primary vote of 38,168 (46.32%), and although there was some doubt about his activities in his previous HSU position by the 2010 election, he virtually maintained his position with  38,268 (46.27%).

Whilst I am not claiming anything, just imagine if two bus loads of 50 people came from the grave yards and the newly enrolled and went to every booth in the electorate, 2 times 50 times 56 equals 5,600 votes.

Taking Mr. Thomson’s  38,268 and reducing them by 5,600 leaves 32,668  which is below the Liberal candidate’s 33,287.

I am not accusing Mr Thomson of electoral fraud but just using my local electorate to show how votes can be frauded (defrauded?)


Chaos



NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 306
MARCH  10TH 2013

by Vincent Gray

CHAOS

The world is a very confusing unpredictable place. Humans have, from the very beginning tried to create some sort of order and means of reducing its uncertainty.

They began by trying to find ways of ensuring the continuation of the regularities of the daily appearance of the sun, and of the annual cycle of the seasons. The responsible Gods had to be propitiated by sacrifice and ritual. The beginnings of this process are described in “The Golden Bough”1 .

The rituals that developed are still in existence in the form of daily prayers and annual holidays for Easter and Christmas, absorbed by more recent religions.

By the time of the Middle Ages it was believed that the world was basically static and unchanging, apart from any deviation which could be blamed on the Gods and solved by prayer or sacrifice.

The beginnings of modern science came with Kepler, Galileo and Newton who found that the behaviour of solid bodies could be predicted successfully by a fairly simple mathematical model. In order to do this Newton had to invent friction and gravity. It became possible to predict the movements of the planets as well as solid objects on the earth.

The principle of mathematical models took hold to the extent that it was believed that the entire universe resembled a huge clock operated by mathematical formulae.

The complacency was disturbed by Einstein’s theory of relativity and by Planck’s quantum theory, but the idea has survived even the discovery of evolution, and the structure of atoms, ..

Science depends on measurement and all measurement inevitably involves inaccuracy. It was only in early 20th century that inaccuracy itself became subject to mathematical models. It is unfortunate that so many people who  make use of them do not take care that their measurements comply with the assumptions of the model used.

The scientific study of the climate began, as with other disciplines, by the measurement of its properties. The science of meteorology is today amongst the most successful of all scientific institutions in its ability to measure and forecast local climate anywhere on the globe.

By comparison with other scientific disciplines it is faced with serious handicaps. Science demands that an experimental determination cannot be accepted unless it can be repeated, to an agreed level of accuracy, by an independent observer. Climate observations cannot be verified in this way. In addition, instruments, procedures, supervision, location are not standardised and the qualifications or the identity of the observer is often unknown. Recently the observer may just be automatic.

The climate is dominated, not by solid objects, but by the behaviour of fluids, by the atmosphere, and the oceans. Over the years many efforts have been made to try and develop a mathematical theory for the behaviour of fluids which can be used to assist weather and climate forecasting. The best that has been achieved involve the use of non linear equations with second order differential quantities. In order for this treatment to be successful it is necessary to define precisely the boundary conditions for the treatment to begin. 

It was only with the work of Edward Lorenz2 that it was realized that the use of this type of model for the climate had serious limitations. He found that a very slight error in the setting up of the boundary conditions (for example, the movement of a butterfly’s wing) would be escalated by the equations to a very large extent if the equations are used to forecast long term future behaviour and thus make such a forecast impossible.

He concluded that for the climate “the prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method”.

I have been reading “Chaos: Making a New  Science” by James Gleick3. This book is claimed to be “The National Best Seller” in the USA in 1987. This is surprising as it is entirely concerned with the subject of what is now called “Chaos”, behaviour which is currently incapable of compliance with a mathematical formula. Unlike most books on mathematics there are no mathematical equations or symbols. There is mich information about the people who have developed the discipline, plus a layman’s account of what they have discovered. There are parts of it which can give predictable results, notably the beautiful “Fractals” and pictures of snowflakes and plant forms in some of the illustrations.

The applications are very widespread. They include the difficulty of deciding the length of the perimeter of a coastline, the behaviour of drops of water from a tap, and irregularities in heartbeats.

He remarks that climate scientists welcomed the arrival of better computers, believing that it would improve the accuracy and range of weather forecasts, but they have been disappointed. Despite the increased capacity of the computers, current  weather forecasts are very little better in forecasting future weather than they were 50 years ago.

The book points out that chaotic observations are often referred to as “noise” and therefore neglected. The term accurately describes most current measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.  The existence of more than 90,000 accurate measurements in peer reviewed Journals that goes back to 18124 is never mentioned by the IPCC because they show that the atmospheric concentration varies with time of day, wind direction and strength and proximity to sources and sinks. It is chaotic. Simlarly no measurements over land surfaces today are published. Efforts to reduce “emissions “ of carbon dioxide, are therefore never checked as to whether they are effective in the localities where they are made.

In New Zealand a facility for the measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide was set up in Makara, just over the hill from this house, in the 1980s. Because most of its measurements were “noise” it was moved to the coast at Baring Head where only “baseline events” are allowed to be revealed, defined as follows:
A baseline event is normally defined as one in which the local wind direction is from the South and the standard deviation of minute-by-minute CO2 concentrations is <0 .1ppm="" 6="" for="" hours="" more="" or="" sup="">5
The other measurements are discarded as “noise”.

The IPCC claims that its “projections” have successfully “managed “chaos in the following quote from “Frequently asked Questions No 1.
“The chaotic nature of the weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue”Note that they do not claim “prediction” only “projection” .
They go on to mention the work of Lorenz but fail to mention that he was concerned with the movement of fluids which he, and all genuine meteorologists, know is the main influence on the climate.

 Illustrations of IPCC models almost always ignore the movement of fluids altogether, and claim that all energy exchanges are due to radiation, the only procedure that is not subject to chaos but can only be calculated if you know the highly varying temperature of the emitter
But they cannot escape chaos. The formation and movement of clouds, periods of overcast behaviour and precipitation are chaotic and they decide how much of the sun’s radiation actually reaches the earth. The ocean oscillations which have an important effect on the climate are also chaotic and all efforts to predict them have failed.

The behaviour of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and even earthquakes, are chaotic. The solar wind, which influences cloud formation, is also  chaotic6

To summarise: there are many phenomena whose future behaviour is not currently capable of being forecast successfully by a mathematical model. One of them is the climate.

Admittedly the IPCC do not claim that they can do it. All they can do is provide “projections” .
It is regrettable that so many people do not realise this.

REFERENCES
1.Frazer J, G 1960 “The Golden Bough”
2. Lorenz. E. 1963 “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” J. Atmospheric Sciences 20, 130-141.
3. Gleick, J, 1987  “Chaos: Making a New  Science” 
4. Beck, E.G 2007 “180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” Energy and Environment, 18, 258-282
5. Manning.M.R., A.J.. Gomez, K.P. Pohl 2013. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/baring.htm
6. Morner, Nils Axel, 2013. Solar  Wind, Earth’s Rotation and Changes in the Terrestrial Climate. Physical Review & Research International; 3(2): 117-136
Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C. Climate Consultant 
75 Silverstream Road Crofton Downs Wellington 6035,  New Zealand                                                         
Email vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz


A hot summer or just hot and bothered?



The Climate Commission was established in 2011 to provide Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about climate change.
Independent?
Reliable Information?

The Climate Commission and the BOM: a hot summer or just hot and bothered.


by Anthony Cox

The Climate Commission [CC] has been dogged by controversy since it was set up to explain the certainty of AGW. Its latest reports are no exception. The first report asserts [paragraph 2]:

“the physics [of AGW] are very well understood”

And then:                                                                                                                  

“The vast majority of the extra heat does not go into the atmosphere and thus raise the air temperature but rather into the ocean.”

But back-radiation of infra red radiation at CO2 absorbing and emitting wavelengths [IR-CDLR], the deus ex machina of AGW, CANNOT penetrate the oceans.

For those more technically inclined the “basic physics” were presented to the US Senate by Dr Roy Clark in his EPA Submission ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2′. In short, IR-CDLR from greenhouse gases [+clouds] in the 4 – 16 micron range of the EM spectrum [the CO2 relevant spectrum] is an ineffective ocean heating agent or insulator because it only penetrates 10 microns and absorbency DECREASES 1000 times relative to IR-B in the solar range. See H&Q73:-


In addition if heat from the atmosphere is “transmitted” to the ocean the temperature gradient must be atmosphere => ocean but global average atmospheric temperature is about 3ºC COOLER than the ocean.

So even if the oceans are warming they are NOT warming due to AGW, even if AGW exists, and there is very strong evidence it doesn’t. What this shows is even if it is a case of "the physics being very well understood" what is not understood is how the climate system reacts to the physics.

Are the oceans warming? The CC shows ocean warming to 700 meters and to 2000 meters in Figure 1. The heat accumulation at 2000 meters is problematic. The ocean warming to 700 meters is more important because this level has a strong relationship with energy leaving the atmosphere. The CC says the ocean is warming to 700 meters.

This is wrong and the CC's information is superseded by ARGO data from the NOAA Pacific Marine environment Laboratory (PMEL).


The second CC report is even more strident than the first and concerns itself with the records recently broken during the 2012-2013 summer. For the CC and the Bureau of Meteorology the recent summer was the hottest on record. This is confirmed by the BOM’s record of summer temperatures and the graph of summer temperature anomalies from 1910:


However the BOM also lists the summer temperature anomalies for all Australian States, Territories and Regions. Researcher Ken Stewart has done an analysis of these States, Territories and Regions. None of these 13 component areas of the Australian continent show a summer temperature record.

How can there be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record?

At first blush this looks like a classic case of Simpson’s Paradox, as researcher Andrew Barnham explains. The paradox occurs when small subsets of data have their trend reversed when agglomeration occurs. This occurs when there is a disconnect between the statistical method of interpreting the data and the causal property which created the data.

In the case of temperature the contradiction between the lack of a record at the component level and the record at the agglomerate national level may be created by the statistical method used by the BOM not being a true representation of the weather and climate factors causing the temperature.

The problem is the BOM has not released the methodology of how it reached its conclusion that the summer was the hottest; or what climatic and weather causes were responsible for it, other than saying that AGW has caused it.

A possible explanation is put forward by Ken Stewart in his post. The summer record is based on the mean temperature which is the average of the combined maximum and minimum temperatures for the period. In his analysis Ken notes that no region had a summer record minimum temperature and only one region had a summer record maximum temperature, Southern Australia:


Southern Australia covers this part of Australia:


However when the temperature results at a State level are combined with the Regional results only a relatively small part of Southern Australian Region is left as being a possible source of the whole Southern Region’s maximum temperature record:



The point Ken makes is that a record maximum in one part of Australia may have produced an overall summer mean record. If this is the case the summer temperature record is not based on a Nation-wide mean temperature heating event; it is based instead on a statistical extrapolation of a different temperature type which only has correlation with weather and climate causes in the area where the record occurred.



The BOM and the CC could make the point that there does not have to be a record in all the constituent parts of the nation; it is sufficient that it be hot enough everywhere for the record to be broken. Any particular records would be a bonus. To this end they list 123 alleged records during the summer covering temperature, rainfall, river heights and other “extreme events”.

Ken Stewart has examined a few of the alleged records and discovered some dubious book-keeping. Ken refers to the 23 records shown in the eye-catching graph on page 3 of the report. He notes the CC appear to have specified 4 flood records including 2 from the Burnett River [Walla and Bundaberg 50 Km apart which would mean 2 records are claimed for the one event!]. The others are Laidley Creek, and the Clarence which produced the Grafton floods.

In the Brisbane River catchment alone, there are 40 separate streams, one of which is Laidley Creek. So, 1 out of 40 streams had a record height. And this was in the wet season. All the larger streams [Warrill, Lockyer, Bremer, Stanley, Brisbane] were not just below record but also below predicted heights.

These floods were terrible disasters and caused great trauma and economic loss for the places affected.  However, the CC does the victims no good by telling less than the whole truth.

The Rockhampton and Kingaroy daily rainfall records are accurately reported and there were also some very big falls in the ranges behind the Rockhampton-Gladstone-Bundaberg area. However, none of the records came within ‘cooee’ of the record from Crohamhurst in 1893 of 907mm.

Crohamhurst [BOM reference: 40062] is in the Sunshine Coast hinterland near Peachester and has Australia's all time rainfall record of 907mm on 3/2/1893. In that week starting on the 1st it had 273.8, 509.5, 907, and 273.3mm on consecutive days. That’s more than 77 inches in 4 days! On the 11th another 223mm fell, and on the 17th 404.1mm, with rain every day from 27th January to 22nd February. The total for the month was 2,999mm. Brisbane had 3 floods in a fortnight, and a 4th flood in June the same year. There was no Climate Commission back then which is perhaps why they have not referred to it.

In addition the Mt Florance 220mm rainfall total, is a January record; it’s all month record of 295mm occurred on 5/2/1993.

Similarly Maryborough’s 258.8mm is not an annual record which remains at 359.9mm on 5/2/1931.

The record temperatures also fare badly. Canberra’s ostensible 42.0 temperature record was surpassed by the Canberra Airport Comparison of 42.2 on 1/2/1968. Cape Naturaliste 37.7C on 30/12/2012 is only a record for December, with its all time record of 40.6C on 10/1/1978. And Birdsville’s all time record of 49.5C on Christmas Eve 1972 still beats the January 2013 ‘record’ of 49C.

So out of the 23 on the CC’s featured page, 5 are not records, 2 refer to the one flood event on the same river only 50-60km apart, 1 is on a small tributary that had a geographically fluke flood while the rest of the catchment streams did not reach predicted heights. Eucla has no data before 1957 despite being open since the early 20th century, and 4 other temperature records are Australia wide records using the new method which can't be checked or replicated. At the very least 6 out of 23, more than 25%, are bogus. How many of the 123 are like that?

Apart from these instances where the CC and BOM cannot even get their own facts right there is the context of the alleged records. For instance Newcastle is listed as having a record temperature of 42.5C. This can be checked at the BOM site. It happened on Friday the 18/1/13. However on the same page the mean maximum for January is shown as being 26.9C. Compare that with the history of monthly mean maximum temperatures at Newcastle. The highest January maximum was in 1882 and the hottest period was before 1890.

The CC, BOM and ultimately the government would have us believe today is much hotter than the past. Such claims are based on misinterpreting their own data. If such basic facts cannot be presented correctly is it no wonder the official AGW science is also legitimately questioned?