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

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Australia's Renewable Energy Policies - flawed

A citizen, Robert J Brock, 

has written a letter to Minister for the Environment and Energy in the Turnbull Ministry, Joshua Anthony "JoshFrydenberg.



Dear Minister

Re: Renewable Energy Policies.
Copy: Hon Jane Prentice MP.

Congratulations on your appointment as Minister for the Environment and Energy.

On an ABC Lateline Broadcast on 27/07/2016 Emma Alberici interviewed you in what I understand was your first interview since being appointed. She asked you how you believe Australia can, and will keep global temperatures under control.


Some of your comments reportedly were:
a. “We are moving away from coal and that is not a bad thing.”
b. “I accept the science of climate change and recognise that Australia needs to do its part as the globe tackles climate change and emissions reduction.”
c. … “(I) absolutely accept that man is contributing to climate change…”
d. … “if you look at the 12 most emission-intensive power generation facilities in Australia, eight of those have closed over the last five years, all of which were coal. And of course with the Renewable Energy Target, which will see 23.5 per cent of our electricity generation by 2020 coming from renewable sources, you will see renewable energy take the place of coal as an important energy source.”

It is clear from your comments that you believe, Canute-like, you are able to control Global Temperatures and that this will involve reducing Australia’s dependence on coal for energy

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Globe cooled when CO2 was Eight Times current concentration.

In 2007, James Hansen et al, in a paper

Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? wrote

 If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2  will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. 
Journal reference:Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231
DOI:10.2174/1874282300802010217
Oh, NO! The planet is doomed if atmospheric CO2 rises above the 350ppm mark. Tipping point alert!

The alarmist organisation 350.org led by Bill McKibbin says:
Right now we're at 400 ppm, and we're adding 2 ppm of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. Unless we are able to rapidly turn that around and return to below 350 ppm this century, we risk triggering tipping points and irreversible impacts that could send climate change spinning truly beyond our control.


Source : Nature Communications
To find appropriate species, we choose two regions with similar climate, one from a simulation
 with today’s climatic and CO
2forcing and another from an Ordovician simulation with a
high atmospheric CO
2 value of 24 PAL. 
AND YET, in a paper published this month, we learn that in the Late Ordovician (450Ma) CO2

Sunday, 24 July 2016

Lovelock: Our Planet's in the best of Hands


This blog has written before about Tim Flannery's devotion to Gaia.

See Tim Flannery - GAIA Worshipper
In 2008, on Andrew Denton's Enough Rope:

Well Gaia is our earth, this extraordinary living organism of ours that we’re all part of and just breathing now, talking we are plugged into Gaia aren’t we? We are, we taking the atmosphere into our bodies, we’re changing its chemical composition and we’re exhaling it.
Meanwhile, the creator of GAIA, James Lovelock after turning his back on GAIA, turned his back on his theory of man made Global warming (AGW):

Marc Morano of Climate Depot reports:MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the man-made global warming fear movement. 
MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'
In case the alarmists are not sure that James Lovelock has turned his back on AGW, as the 96 year-old new Patron of the Dorset Wild Life Trust  has made the following statements:
  • pleased the Navitus Bay wind farm development didn’t get the go ahead, as the energy that would be produced “wouldn't be very reliable.”
  • “I think anyone that tries to predict more than five to ten years ahead is a bit of an idiot, so many things can change unexpectedly.”
  • global warming proponents stated that the earth would get hotter and hotter but “they don’t really know,”
  • climate models are only based on what data goes into them, (GIGO) so it was hard to say what would happen in the future.


When asked, should we try to save the World, James Sadi (bold added)
Don’t try and save the world, it’s pure hubris. We might be able to save Dorset. I don’t know how we do it. It’s up to us. I think it’s easier to save Dorset than the planet.” 
“There’s one thing to keep in mind here. We don’t need to save the planet, it’s looked after itself for four billion years. It’s always been habitable and things have lived on it, so why worry.”

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

"A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA"


Roy Warren Spencer, Ph.D., is a meteorologist, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Spencer also served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.

Roy, with 
Doug Domenech, the Director of the Fueling Freedom Project at The Texas Public Policy Foundation, have released a booklet:



The paper answers basic questions about global temperature data, climate change, and how it relates to energy policy.  

In the paper, Roy addresses the absurd furphy (oxymoron?) -  97 percent of climate

Tuesday, 19 July 2016

Pauline Hanson and Q & A (and Update)


Anthony Cox


Pauline Hanson, newly elected to the senate with up to 6 other One Nation candidates, appeared on Q & A on the 18 July 2016. No one can question her courage. But, as with every other Q & A, any view not approved by the hard left/Green was going to have a hard time. Tony Jones and the other 4 panellists, Simon Birmingham of the coalition, the smug Larissa Waters of the Greens, the very circumspect Nick Xenophon and Sam Dastyari of the ALP, all in their own way attacked Hanson. Of course the MSM took an anti-Hanson approach and before the program left wing protestors outside the ABC again demonstrated their support for free speech by trying to stop the program from going ahead.


Dastyari in particular took every opportunity to attack Hanson’s so-called hate speech. The moment of the night was when a reminiscing Dastyari said he was from Iran. Hanson asked him if he was a practising Muslim. Dastyari would not answer. Apparently he is an atheist which means under Islamic law he is an apostate. Apostasy is the worst sin in Islam and is punishable by death. No doubt Dastyari was also concerned with alienating the large block of Muslim voters in ALP seats.

Of particular interest was a question from a stern faced Muslim in the audience. His name was

Thursday, 14 July 2016

Students taught Climate Advocacy NOT Climate Science


David Russell Legates is a Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university, and a former Delaware State Climatologist. (Source)


Professor David Legates has many published papers and well as opinion pieces.

In an opinion piece this week, David wrote
For almost thirty years, I have taught climate science at three different universities. What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate. This makes them easy targets for the climate alarmism that pervades America today. 
Earth’s climate probably is the most complicated non-living system one can study because it naturally is an integration of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, hydrology, oceanography, and cryology and also includes human behavior by responding to and affecting human activities. Current concerns over climate change have further pushed climate science to the forefront of scientific inquiry.
This blog has long lamented the fact that school students are abused by being taught climate propaganda and not the truth about climate science. The irony is, a student leaving school last year or this year would not have experienced any global warming.

IN Australia, a high school student is usually forced to watch Al Gore's SciFi film An Inconvenient Truth two or three times.

Professor Legates continues:

In the past, I have been invited to speak at three different universities during their semester-long and college-wide focus on climate science literacy. At all three, two movies were required viewing by all students to assist them in becoming climate science literate: Al Gore’s biased version of climate science, An Inconvenient Truth, and the 2004 climate science fiction disaster film, The Day After Tomorrow. 
This past spring, the University of Delaware sponsored an Environmental Film Festival featuring six films. Among them only An Inconvenient Truth touched at all on the subject of climate science, albeit in such a highly flawed way that in Britain, students must be warned about its bias. The other films were activist-oriented and included movies that are admittedly science fiction or focused on “climate change solutions.” 
For these films, faculty members were selected to moderate discussions. Scientifically based faculty could have been chosen from the university’s College of Earth, Ocean and the Environment. Instead, the discussion of An Inconvenient Truth was led by a professor of philosophy and one movie—a documentary on climate change solutions that argues solutions are pertinent irrespective of the science—was moderated by a civil engineer.

Read More from Professor Legates - http://www.popecenter.org/2016/07/students-learn-climate-change-advocacy-not-climate-science/ 

Wednesday, 13 July 2016

WOMEN'S WEEKLY: women of the future, Vote for Rashida Khan


Rashida Khan is an amazing young lady.

From Women's Weekly:
Rashida has combined a passion for horses with a desire to help some of the most vulnerable in our communities. The result is Equine Magic, which offers a unique therapy using horses for special needs children and others in the prison system. By working with horses, participants develop emotional connections, respect, leadership skills and confidence. “I have developed a therapy program, which I deliver across the Northern Territory,” explains Rashida. The scholarship would allow Rashida to expand Equine Magic so it is available to more remote and disadvantaged communities in the Northern Territory.
What has this to do with Australian Climate Sceptics?



Rashida has been a long time friend and led one of the convoy of vehicles from Darwin to the ACT in the Convoy of No Confidence.


Highly recommended. To vote, go to this link - Women of the Future.

Hear Rashida explain her case in this video:


Saturday, 9 July 2016

Hot Truth about Cold Weather- Peer reviewed papers - Cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather

IMAGE: BNP
A peer reviewed paper published in Environment International:

Geographical variation in relative risks associated with cold waves in Spain: The need for a cold wave prevention plan. Carmona et al  2016 Mar;88:103-11. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.027. Epub 2015 Dec 29

Abstract

(bold added)

In general, there are few studies that analyse the impact of low temperatures on mortality and fewer still that use cold-wave-definition thresholds based on epidemiological and non-climatological criteria. Such a threshold definition, which took into account population features such as socio-economic and demographic characteristics, made it possible for a specific threshold temperature to be obtained for each of Spain's 52 provincial capitals in this study. Using generalised linear models with the Poisson regression link, and controlling for trend, autocorrelations and seasonalities of the series, and influenza epidemics, we obtained the impact of low temperatures on mortality in each provincial capital by calculating the relative risks (RRs) and attributable risks (ARs) for natural as well as circulatory and respiratory causes. The study showed higher minimum temperature thresholds in coastal areas, and an overall impact of cold on mortality in Spain due to natural causes RR=1.13 (95% CI: 1.11-1.16), circulatory causes RR=1.18 (95% CI: 1.15-1.22) and respiratory causes RR=1.24 (95% CI: 1.20-1.29) slightly greater than that obtained to date for heat. From a public health standpoint, there is a need for specific cold wave prevention plans at a regional level which would enable mortality attributable to low temperatures to be reduced. These plans have shown themselves to be effective in decreasing heat-related mortality, and we feel that they are essential for reducing cold-related effects on morbidity and mortality.
What does this mean?

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Grand Glorieuse Growing Gradually: New Peer reviewed paper.

Map of shoreline changes on Grande Glorieuse Island between 1989 and 2003
illustrating the highly dynamic nature of this reef island.
Source: Testut et al. (2016)
There has been no mass migration from Pacific Islands being flooded due to the alleged rise in the oceans. The Maldives, who held the world's first  (and only?) underwater cabinet meeting (in 2009) to highlight the supposed effects of climate change (SLR), approved four new (underwater?) airports by 2012.


A real threat? An attempt to grab UN grants?

The Maldives government has recently awarded the Saudi Binladin group a massive project to construct a new passenger terminal at the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport.

Looks like the rising oceans scare from the alarmists has been busted.






Grand Glorieuse Growing Gradually

According to the "great source of knowledge" Wikipedia, The Glorieuses or Glorioso Islands are a group of French islands and rocks totalling 5 square kilometres (1,200 acres), at 11°33′S 47°20′E, in the Indian Ocean about 160 kilometres (99 mi) northwest of Madagascar.

Peer reviewed paper published in 
Acta Oecologica 72: 110-119: 
Testut, L., Duvat, V., Ballu, V., Fernandes, R.M.S., Pouget, F., Salmon, C. and Dyment, J. 2016. Shoreline changes in a rising sea level context: The example of Grande Glorieuse, Scattered Islands, Western Indian Ocean. (LINK)

Abstract

This paper provides baseline data on absolute and relative sea level variations and shoreline changes in the Scattered Islands region of the Indian Ocean, based on aerial image analysis, satellite altimetry and field observations and in situ measurements from the 2009 and 2011 TAAF scientific expeditions. The analysis shows the importance of regular observations and monitoring of these islands to better understand reef island responses to climate stressors. We show that Grande Glorieuse Island has increased in area by 7.5 ha between 1989 and 2003, predominantly as a result of shoreline accretion: accretion occurred over 47% of shoreline length, whereas 26% was stable and 28% was eroded. Topographic transects and field observations show that the accretion is due to sediment transfer from the reef outer slopes to the reef flat and then to the beach. This accretion occurred in a context of sea level rise: sea level has risen by about 6 cm in the last twenty years and the island height is probably stable or very slowly subsiding. This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area, especially sediment availability and transport. We also evidence rotation of the island, underscoring the highly dynamic nature of reef islands. (bold added)


CO2 Science reviewed this paper.

Introducing their study, Testut et al. (2016) write that reef islands are widely thought to be highly vulnerable to climate change, in particular to sea level rise and to extreme climate events, such as tropical and non-tropical cyclones, while further noting that sea level rise is often perceived as casting doubt on reef islands future habitability. And it was against this backdrop of pessimism that the seven European scientists went on to assess the likelihood -- or not -- of these several negative contentions actually occurring in the real world of nature. 
More specifically, Testut et al. acquired baseline data on both absolute and relative sea level variations and shoreline changes in the Scattered Islands region of the Indian Ocean, based on aerial image analysis, satellite altimetry, field observations and in situ measurements derived from the 2009 and 2011 Terres Australes et Antarctiques Francaises (or TAAF) scientific expeditions.

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

False "Climate Change" Statistics

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 327

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

JULY  3RD 2016 


Statistics:

The aim of statistics is to model a particular phenomenon on the basis of scientific measurements. Statistics of climate take into account temperature, wind speed, rain, air pressure, and many other variables. The best that can be done on the basis of these variables is to forecast future climate to +-2 degrees accuracy, with a bias of +-1 degree, covering a period of a few days. Incidentally, it is not necessary to take carbon dioxide measurements into account for such forecasts.


I argue that the following errors are made:

  1.   Having selected a completely false claim for temperature, this is used to claim a false model of the climate.
  2.   All normal statistics necessitate admissions of variability. However, none are supplied by this technique.
  3.  This is based on the assumption that the climate is constant, whereas it varies over time. Even the variability of the climate is not constant - it is variable, and satellites prove it.

I am surprised at the number of people who have accepted these false ideas, and have failed to notice the above points.

Monday, 4 July 2016

770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014

Source
Since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role. (LINK)
Just a paragraph from a post on Pierre Gosselin's great blog NoTricksZone.

It was written by 
Kenneth Richard who goes on to say:
Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation.  Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers. 
Mr Richard points out also that there are 240 papers supporting a Skeptical-of-the-Consensus Position for 2016 (here.)

Now, Question for Mainstream Media (MSM):

Will you still promote the Great Global Warming hoax? The hypothesis HAS been falsified. (see link) (see Scientific Method Falsified) AND Pauline Hanson's One Nation No2 Queensland candidate Malcolm Roberts looks like gaining an Australian Senate Seat.

Malcolm Roberts, with empirical evidence, can destroy the MSM's support of the hoax.