Sunday, 23 November 2014

Memo to all Duped Alarmists

Opinion by Michael Spencer
It would seem to me that you all seem to thrive on hearing bad news constantly, delivered by a small and select coterie, and refuse to contemplate the possibility that there could be lots of good news.  In fact, my experience to date with people who believe in the falsified AGW hypothesis has one thing in common: such people refuse to look at possible alternatives.  Thus an equally-famous quote from one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Paul Wartson, who said: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Dare I suggest it seems that some sort of quasi-religious fervour has replaced any scientific searching for truth?  And that anyone daring to suggest anything that runs contrary to that quasi-religious belief system is automatically branded ‘a denier’ in the same way as extreme religions brand anyone who does not comply with their notion of orthodoxy as being ‘a heretic’, with all the overtones this implies - and one could be forgiven to comparing such actions as being akin to the actions of ‘the authorities’ in Medi√¶val times.  (Or perhaps the ISIS death cultists doing their evil things in the Middle East right now!)  ‘Groupthink’ anyone?

Harsh words perhaps, but I fear this is not too far from the truth of the matter!

But yes!  There is good news of which it appears quite clear Alarmists all seem to be blissfully (?) unaware!  And it’s no wonder this is so if you rely on the general Media for your information because, after all: Good news does not sell newspapers” - well-known old adage, and proven true over time.  Furthermore, you are unlikely to get any contrary news from anyone who is riding a most comfortable ‘gravy train’; after all there is another adage: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair, 1935)

So, why can’t Alarmists start to look at a few facts for a change?  And yes!  I know you will say that everything that does not agree with your belief system is ‘misinformation’.  So, let me just suggest perhaps an occasional contrary viewpoint that you can then proceed to prove wrong could really spice things up!

Try some of these, just by way of example:

1.  Levels of atmospheric CO2 follow temperatures and not the other way around - as promoted - famously {or deceptively [ED]} - by Al Gore:

So - if this empirical data from ice cores is true, why is it that CO2 today is supposed to do the opposite, and thereby cause the global warming about which you seem to be so terrified?  (Click on the LINK for more information about the Arctic!)

Note statement from Dr Guy LeBlanc Smith: “I am a concerned professional research scientist with over 30 years experience, latter part with CSIRO as a Principal Research Scientist. As my funding no longer depends on politicians, I am free to make my information and conclusions public. 

2.  Given that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing, how come that an amalgamation of the three most ‘authoritative’ terrestrial data sources together with the two satellite records shows this result:

And if just the satellite observations are used (and these have not been subject to ‘homogenisation’ - translation: cooking the books):

It's a couple of months further on since that graph was made! (LINK)

3.  The hottest-ever Summer of 2014 sounded wonderful as announced by Climate Council Chief Tim Flannery et al, but only if past history is ignored, just by way of this example:


Do you think I’m just making this up - real records are available!  (Click on the LINK!)

And then there’s been the ‘homogenisation’ of data - this means ‘cooking the books’ to make facts fit theory and not the other way around as it should be in real science.  (And click on this LINK!)

And now it’s been announced ‘officially’, just in time for the lead-up to the UN IPCC Conference in Paris! (What a surprise!

Before you accept what you read and hear via the mainstream media, and from assorted politicians and advocacy groups, about hottest summersor increasing temperatures, consider this:

Australia is NOT warming, and the hottest year in recent history was 1998!


Don’t believe it? Prefer to believe ‘information’ provided by those enjoying taxpayer-funded grants for ‘scientific’ research? Check it out! Click on Source to get the facts! (This graph looks a bit like those in point 2 above!)

4.  Sea levels are rising and Pacific and Indian Ocean Island Nations are going under water!

Really?  Do yourself a favour and check out the Landsat photographs of Earth from Space since 1984.  I’m making it easy for you; here’s a link to Kiribati - often reported to be disappearing beneath the waves.  Just click on the LINK for this photograph:

Go and look anywhere you like!  Dubai is interesting, because the sand-islands weren’t there in 1984 - you can see them ‘grow’!

Can you see Kiribati being swamped?  You might be smarter than I, because I can’t see any change. So, tell me I’m wrong!

5.  Look what the dreadful CO2 is doing: it’s ‘greening’ the planet.  This must be true because the CSIRO says so ...... (Click on this LINK!)

6.  Wild weather is getting more frequent!  Again, oh, really?  Check the facts - click on the links:


Hmmmm ..... They don’t seem to be increasing, nor do they seem to be more intense.

7.  The ice is melting in the Arctic!

Really?  Go and take a look:


Try every source at once then - includes Antarctica:

I could go on ....

8.  Perhaps you think that wind turbines are a wonderful way to reduce ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ in electricity generation, and thereby ‘save the planet’?

Source                                                         Source

Consider these nasty facts: wind turbines do not appear as if by magic!  They have to be manufactured.  There’s lots of steel and cement to make the concrete for the bases.  To manufacture these items requires large amounts of CO2 released during that processing - there is no other way. 

 And then there’s the manufacture of the mechanisms, the blades, the magnets, the wiring, the delivery and construction, etc..  All of these things involve considerable ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ - there's no avoiding this!  Very conservatively, it will take at least 15 years before a turbine could possibly just break even!  And then there's the ‘minor’ problem that if the wind doesn’t blow - either strong enough, or too strong - the turbines don’t work, so there has to be a constant back-up running, including to provide heating in freezing conditions.  Of course, there is also another ‘minor’ (?) problem of the massive killing of wildlife - birds and bats (and aren’t environmentalists supposed to concerned about such matters?), to say nothing of the problems for both livestock and humans caused by infra-sound.  (Don't believe this?  There’s a standing offer for people to spend a holiday living in one of the now-abandoned farm-houses to test this out for themselves.  It’s a fair offer!)  And then there’s the fire risk as these things burst into flames quite regularly as their bearings give up - what a wonderful thing to happen during our bushfire period.  I could go on.  (Click on photo links for interesting stuff!)

Of course, there’s solar power.  Wonderful, if only the sun would shine with equal intensity 24/7!  Unfortunately, no amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact.  (Yes!  I know!  ‘One day’ we'll be able to store the energy!  One day .... )

9. Why not look at modern nuclear power?  How about something that, unlike the uranium heavy water reactors (like Fukushima) about which you most probably are terrified, is available, cheap, controllable/safe, abundant, and clean.  “Wait a minute I almost hear you think!  Surely that sounds just like the ‘green renewables’ about which we are so enthused - if only they would work!”

Do you know that the Americans had this technology operating back in the 1960s, and that it was de-funded ‘for political reasons’ at the time?  
(It was because of The Cold War,and the emphasis on making bigger bombs, for which this technology was useless!) 

Do you know that the Norwegians turned on their first Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor in April, 2013? (Link) What? Didn’t hear about it? (Refer to the adage quoted above about newspapers and good news!)

And look how efficient, and how little low-level waste there is! (Click here for report.) 

Do you know that Australia is known to have about 18% of the World’s supply of the relevant element - and no!  It's not uranium, and it's far more plentiful.

It’s thorium. 

And do you know that the technology involved can ‘digest’ the existing waste that worries so many? And do you know that there are reactors that can be air-cooled (no ‘Fukushima’ worries there); will shut down automatically in the event of a malfunction - no ‘melt down’ risk; and no need for the massive pressure domes to guard against accidents, etc.?

Sounds too good to be true?  Haven’t looked at that ‘TED’ talk? Take a quarter of an hour to watch:

And, by the way, there’s a new material about to be manufactured in Victoria that can deal with radionuclide pollution, oil spills and oil contamination, PCB plastics waste, and yes! even can digest and break down the very CO2 about which any alarmist is so worried.  No nasty chemicals; completely natural, organic, microbial action, with the ultimate residual material a particularly fine fertiliser.  (And you are just going to love the material from which it is derived!)

See!  I said there is good news .....

There’s lots more; I’ve mentioned that our planet is greening, and plant growth is increasing, but you most certainly will not know anything about these things unless and until you are all prepared to open your minds and look!

Proposing the positive is better than opposing the negative! 

Just a thought ......

10. The sea is becoming acidic!

Now that’s interesting! To quote James Delingpole on “Breitbart”: “NOAAgate: ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick!

It seems that empirical data withheld by key scientists shows that since 1910 ocean pH levels have not decreased in our oceans as carbon dioxide levels increased. Overall the trend is messy but more up than down, becoming less acidic. So much for those terrifying oceans of acid that were coming our way! (Click HERE for details.) 

But then, I’ve probably just wasted my time typing this up because if past experience is any guide you won’t look, and won’t listen, and you will just continue to listen to the same 'experts' who have been telling you the same negative things for years, such as “The computer models project ....” and “97% of climate scientists say ....”

Well, the computer models haven’t done too well so far, and the “97%” is pure fantasy when you examine the basis of that claim, rather than just repeat it unthinkingly – almost as a mantra, as if it is truth, so then many believe it to be the truth!

The computer projections all show warming because they’ve been programmed to assume that CO2 drives warming (exactly the OPPOSITE to the ice-core and other records)! So, of course, they show warming! 

Now, here’s a little thought about party balloons!

Party balloons float! Why? Because they’re filled with helium – a lighter-than-air gas, with a concentration in air of 4. (Air has a molecular mass of almost 29, and because 4 is less than 29 – the balloons float!)

On the other hand there are those ‘nasty’ black balloons coming out of power station smokestacks you’ve seen in the TV advertisements (and vehicle exhausts) and floating ‘up there’ in the blue, supposedly to add to the ‘greenhouse effect’.

Now here’s an interesting thought! These black balloons are supposed to be filled with CO2, aren’t they? But wait! CO2 has a molecular mass of 44 – so it’s heavier-than-air. (That’s why it’s used in fire extinguishers: it’s safe in almost every type of fire, it cools as it’s released due to adiabatic expansion [effectively coming out as ‘snow’], and it goes down to smother flames!)

Think about that! .... How is CO2 from any source supposed to defy the laws of physics and go floating ‘up there’ to wreck our climate? (True, there will be some mixing, especially in windy conditions, but its’ natural tendency is to go down!)

Don’t believe it? Don’t trust me? Click on the balloons' links to get the facts! 

Folks you have been connedby experts using propaganda!

Don’t believe this claim? Especially when 97% of climate scientistssay we’re all doomed?
Well here’s a challenge for you! (A $10,000[AUD] Challenge, in fact.)

All you have to do is to provide a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming!

How to win the $10,000: Internet link -HERE (and on this blog - HERE)

By the way, not one ‘expert’ has taken the money in over three years. Perhaps that might tell you something!) 

So here’s a famous thought with which to leave you:

And another relevant comment from Thomas Paine:


Michael Spencer

Interstellar: Hollywood leaves AGW in a gravity well.

by Anthony Cox

Hollywood has been a staunch supporter of AGW. In fact with Russell Crowe’s Noah any suggestion Hollywood had an open mind on the subject went down the gurgler as fast as that flightless turkey could sink.

But now, despite DiCaprio’s grotesquely hypocritical alignment with the UN [if Noah had been on DiCaprio’s monster luxury ship they would never have got off], with Interstellar being full of hilarious puns and critiques of AGW, it seems the AGW mania in Hollywood may not be all black hole rubbish after all.

Interstellar is set on a doomed Earth with a blight which eats all plants. It’s caused by nitrogen which in itself is a wickedly witty reversal of the role played by the trace gas, CO2, in the AGW fantasy. Nitrogen is 80% of the Earth’s atmosphere and along with oxygen the bulk of the atmosphere. The point being made is that the idea that humans through their tiny emissions of an already tiny trace gas could destroy the planet is simply nonsense compared with what nature can do.

Our hero Cooper, who is an astronaut, has a hilarious run in with 2 education officials who berate him for his daughter’s disputation of the validity of the Moon landing.

Secondly, a prominent alarmist, Lewandowsky, who is an educator, has prepared a notorious paper which asserts those who doubt AGW are also likely to doubt the Moon landings. That in the future it is the educators who are now the ones denying the Moon landing is a rather neat reversal of Lewandowsky’s stupid idea and a pointed indictment of the capitulation of education to the lie of alarmism today.

Prior to meeting the Lewandowskys of the future Cooper had managed to capture a drone powered by solar which had been wondering aimlessly for decades. Again the joke is multi-layered. The drone is an Indian military one. The point is even if solar can be successful as an energy source it will not be a ‘pure’ energy source as the renewables are presented by alarmism.

Secondly India, like China, which has just hoodwinked Obama and all other alarmists with their deal about emissions which allows them to increase emissions until 2030 when their population stabilises, isn’t going down the renewable path at all. India is investing heavily in coal, like China, and also Thorium, a great energy source, already proven, which has been ignored by the alarmists.

Thirdly, the drone ridicules the efforts of alarmists to get a solar powered plane in the air on a continuous world flight. These efforts began in 2003 and are going nowhere fast. Interestingly one of the alarmists involved in the Quixote Solar Impulse plan is a psychiatrist. Lewandowsky is a psychologist.

Anyway Cooper serendipitously discovers a plan to rescue humanity from the blight and is signed up for the rescue of earlier missions.

Before going on his mission Cooper says: just because man was born on Earth doesn’t mean he has to die here. It’s a great statement which contradicts the Ludditism of the alarmists who pretend to love new technology such as renewables but are really anti-technology as much as they are really anti-human. The alarmists would like humanity to die on Earth.

Finally after some superb set pieces such as the wave planet and the gravity well, Cooper meets Dr Michael Mann, the best of us all. The name choice can’t be a coincidence. Mann in the movie is a lunatic who has colluded with kindly Dr Michael Caine’s plan to distract humanity from their fate by only pretending there was a chance for humanity on other planets.

After Mann is dispatched, ironically by his own lack of scientific knowledge, some black hole and fifth dimension gobble-gook gets Cooper home to meet his elderly daughter and a gravity distorted ending.

The movie is long but views well. It’s no masterpiece though with obvious issues, scientific or otherwise. 2001 it isn’t. But, with its sly digs at the ratbaggery of alarmism, let’s hope it creates a trend of satirising the stupidity and lies of alarmism in Hollywood.