Monday, 30 March 2015

Ted Cruz: I don’t believe in climate change because I ‘follow the science’

One-on-one Interview with Ted Cruz     

Ted Cruz:
You mention global warming: I’m a big believer that we should follow the science and follow the evidence. If you look at global warming alarmists; they don’t like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years.

Now that’s a real problem for the global warming alarmists because all of the computer models on which this whole issue was based predicted significant warming and yet the satellite data show it ain’t happening.

Interview interjects a lame question based on the “Precautionary Principle” (addressed here) in short: “Why not do everything we can to reduce our carbon (dioxide) footprint?”

To which Ted replies: I read this morning from a Newsweek article from the 1970s, talking about global cooling, and it said; “The “Science” is clear, it’s overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period and it’s gonna cause enormous problems world-wide and the solution for all the advocates in the 70s for “Global Cooling” was massive government control of the energy sector, of our economy and aspects of our lives.

The data proved to be not backing up that theory so that all the advocates of “global cooling” suddenly shifted to “global warming” and they advocated; “It’s warming” and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution: government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.

But then the data don’t back that up so if you notice the term has shifted; and now suddenly it’s “climate change.”

And Climate Change and again the solution is: government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives and when some-one keeps proposing the same solution regardless of the problem, you start to think – maybe they just like: government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.

Ted Cruz sums up: I am the child of two mathematicians and scientists. I believe in following evidence and data. On the Global Warming Alarmists: Anyone who actually points the the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims – they don’t engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream: You’re a denier! They brand you a heretic.

H/t Jim Simpson

Thursday, 26 March 2015

Differences between Real Science and Man Made Global Warming Science

Mike Herman writes (LINK) Note: Mike uses MMGW, we have substituted AGW

There are at least a dozen differences between man-made global warming (AGW) and real science. While science follows a defined scientific method, AGW uses political campaign tools like polls, demonizing opposition, scare tactics, deception, and propaganda. 
  1. Real science says "Question everything".  AGW says "Questioning AGW is reckless because it threatens the planet."
  2. Real science never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. AGW tries to break that cycle by claiming "the debate is over" and "the science is settled". "SETTLED SCIENCE" IS AN OXYMORON invented by non-scientist Al Gore to avoid debating his profitable beliefs in public.
  3. Real science develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. AGW ISN'T FALSIFIABLE because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore's movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to AGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited AFTER the fact as proof of AGW. There is no observation that AGW proponents will accept as refuting their belief. Predictive models created by warming proponents are consistently wrong:
  4. Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and SMEARS SKEPTICS as "non-believers", equating them to holocaust deniers and treating them more like the Church treated Galileo:http://business.financialpost....
  5. Real science grants awards for disproving accepted truths. AGW researchers, on the other hand, have a VESTED INTEREST in only one outcome. They can access billions of dollars in government money only while MMGW is perceived by the public as a threat to humanity:
  6. Real science has nothing to do with polls or consensus, but AGW proponents CONSTANTLY USE POLLS to defend their claims. Ironically, even when they use polls they have to spin their outcomes:
  7. Real science doesn't claim validity by citing the credentials of proponents. It respects only data and analysis, regardless of who is publishing it. Einstein was a little known patent office clerk when he overturned the consensus understanding of space and time in 1905 with Special Relativity. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong.”-Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist
  8. Real science keeps testing to remove bias and discard bad models. Einstein's Relativity is still being tested a century later. AGW ignores or HIDES DATA it doesn't like:
  9. Real science accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When AGW predictions are wrong they don't question the hypothesis...they just change the predictions and REBRAND the movement.
  10. Real science never recommends that skeptics be JAILED:
  11. Real science doesn't create billionaires who get rich peddling untested theories.
  12. Real science tries to account for all interfering variables in studies. AGW simply ignores all the variables that have drastically impacted Earth's climate for billions of years unless those factors are needed to excuse faulty predictions.

Ocean Acidification

Patrick Moore, writing for The Frontier Centre for Public Policy:

Ocean Acidification Will not Kill Coral Reefs and Shellfish

Image: NOAA
When the slight global warming that occurred between 1970 and 2000 came to a virtual standstill, the doomsayers adopted “climate change” which apparently means that all extreme weather events are caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO²). Cold, hot, wet, dry, wind, snow, and large hailstones are attributed to humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels.
But the pause in global warming kept on and became embarrassing around 2005. Something dire was needed to prop up the climate disruption narrative. “Ocean acidification” was invented to provide yet another apocalyptic scenario, only this one required no warming or severe weather, only more CO² in the atmosphere.
The story goes that as CO² increases in the atmosphere the oceans will absorb more of it and this will cause them to become acidic, well not exactly, but at least to become less basic. This in turn is predicted to dissolve the coral reefs and kill the oysters, clams, mussels, and microscopic algae that have calcareous shells. It was named “global warming’s evil twin”.
Seawater in the open ocean is typically at a pH of 8.0-8.5 on a scale of 0-14 where 0 is most acidic, 14 is most basic and 7 is neutral. Ocean acidification from increased CO² is predicted to make the ocean less basic, perhaps to pH 7.5 under so-called worst-case projections. How do I know that increased CO² will not kill the coral reefs and shellfish? Let me count the ways.
First, contrary to popular belief, at 400 parts per million (0.04%), CO² is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been during most of the 550 million years since modern life forms emerged during the Cambrian period. CO² was about ten times higher then than it is today. Corals and shellfish evolved early and have obviously managed to survive through eras of much higher CO² than present levels. This fact alone should negate the “predictions” of species extinction from CO² levels that are nowhere near the historical maximum.

Read More from Moore here

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Dr Tim Ball debates Canadian Green Elizabeth May -UPDATED

Dr Tim Ball, author of "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" in which he exposed the malicious misuse of climate science as it was distorted by dishonest brokers to advance the political aspirations of the progressive left, debates Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

Myth of Doubt: 

Elizabeth used the phrase Myth of Doubt several times to which Tim replied:

That is not appropriate in this instance because science is about skepticism and what myself and others are trying to do is to be skeptical scientists. We don’t just accept as given what government scientists – and by the way all the people at the IPCC are government appointed people – we don’t accept what they are saying; we’re challenging the science and we’re showing that the evidence doesn’t support what they’re saying. And, of course, we saw that use of “myth of doubt” encompassed in the idea that we are global warming skeptics and then we became ”climate change deniers.”

Elizabeth’s point about the greenhouse effect, by the way, completely ignores the fact that water vapour – she did mention that it was a major greenhouse gas – it’s major by a long way. It’s 97% of the greenhouse gases by volume; CO2 is less than 4% and methane which Andrew Weaver of the IPCC said they didn’t even consider in their computer models and, of course, what they do with water vapour they just say that the amount humans produce is not significant.

Elizabeth May starts off seemingly reasonable but toward the end reverts to type of the Greens that we know and.....


= = = = = = = = = = = 

UPDATE: From Comment by Alex Garcia.
See followup interview with Dr. Ball & Josh Steffler
where Dr. Ball explains a few things that he was not
allowed to say on the broadcast radio show. (HINT: Communism)

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Exporting Australia's control of Environmental Policies to the United Nations

Graham Williamson

Control of Australia’s environmental policies, including climate change, AG21 and sustainability is increasingly being exported to foreign countries, especially through the UN. Since this is all part of globalisation however, control of other policies, even including our human rights, is also being exported to the UN.

This exporting of control typically occurs gradually and involves various stages. Firstly, our government, on our behalf, signs various international treaties or agreements, which the instigators always rush to say are ‘soft law’ and ‘non-binding’. In reality however, although having no basis in law (and no justification democratically), our politicians, in their eagerness to invite the UN to interfere in Australian domestic affairs, effectively get around the law and democratic impediments by using the following means of ‘enforcement’.
  • International moral obligations and economic, or market mechanisms
  • Building reporting requirements and need for compliance reports into the agreement – Australia has agreed to send regular compliance reports to the UN to prove compliance with UN directives, not only in regard to AG21, but also human rights.

In reality there are many non-legal mechanisms to ensure compliance. These international agreements are however only the first step in a gradual process.

The next step in the process is to incorporate the UN’s directives into domestic laws. This process is ongoing, but already it is well advanced with hundreds of UN directives incorporated into local laws.

The end game in this process, is to incorporate UN requirements into enforceable international laws.  This process is intended to be accelerated in Paris this year.

The point must be made abundantly clear, that those who have been actively involved in this process, or those whose philosophy or ideology supports an abandonment of national sovereignty and democracy in support of globalisation, can be expected to strongly defend these changes.

For instance, In a personal communication Greg Hunt advised me that AG21 is a ‘non-binding’ international agreement which is therefore irrelevant. Similarly, Tim Wilson recently advised me, in regard to the exporting of control of human rights to the UN:

“UN treaties have no binding power. They are only binding to the extent that they are incorporated into Australian law. If it is not in law, it has no legal standing.”

The statements of both Greg and Tim are notable not for what they actually said, but rather for what they chose to exclude.

Greg of course, being both a politician and a lawyer, as well as having a background in the UN, is well aware of the international mechanisms which are used to ensure compliance with UN agreements. He is also aware that increasingly, Australian domestic legislation is based upon the dictates of the UN. He must also be aware that for two decades his political colleagues have been compiling expensive compliance reports to convince the UN we are complying with their requirements. And although he claimed the Commonwealth has nothing to do with local Councils, he must also be aware the Commonwealth has been funding AG21 implementation by Councils and has even produced a Local AG21 instruction manual. 

Although he is aware of these facts he chose to exclude all this information when questioned. (bold added)

As noted above, Tim also tried to dismiss concerns about the UN controlling human rights on the basis that UN human rights agreements are non-binding. Like Greg though, Tim chose to exclude many pertinent facts from his answer. 

But even as Tim was answering, the HRC has  submitted a report to the UN alleging a violation of the UN Convention against Torture by the Australian government. Although this referral to the UN, and the response of the UN, are claimed by Tim to be irrelevant and inconsequential, Australia has been criticised by the UN for an alleged breach of the convention. Even worse though, the HRC also recommended, in their submission:
That the government ensure domestic implementation of Australia’s international human rights obligations in law, policy and practice 
So as Tim, a human rights Commissioner with the HRC, says there is no need to worry, UN human rights agreements are non-binding, at exactly the same time the HRC is lobbying the government to ensure UN human rights provisions are made even more enforceable by being enshrined into Australian law. Interestingly, according to Article 29(3) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
This is just one of the UN controlled human rights that the HRC is seeking to further enforce upon Australians, but when I questioned Tim to see if this is one of the ‘rights’ he supports for all Australians, he declined to answer.

One of the main human rights Australians need to protect our democracy is the right to make an informed vote for genuine alternatives. But the right to make a democratic vote, which includes the right to be correctly informed and the right to choose from genuine alternatives, is NOT protected in the Constitution. Clearly, a vote for bipartisan collusion, or a vote made in ignorance of the true covert agenda, is not a democratic vote. This right to make a democratic vote should surely receive top priority for Constitutional reform, but it seems it is not even part of the HRC’s agenda.

Interestingly, Tim Wilson would also be aware that, rather than consolidate our human rights as birthright or god given constitutionalised rights, the Australian government announced in 2010 that they will continue to export the control of the human rights of all Australians to the UN, requiring all legislation to be consistent with UN requirements. According to the Australian Human Rights Framework:
“Since its election, the Australian Government has acted to reinvigorate Australia’s engagement with the United Nations. We have issued a standing invitation to the UN to visit Australia to examine the protection of human rights here, sending a clear message that we are committed to our international  obligations and relationship with the United Nations. The Government is committed to restoring Australia’s reputation as a good international citizen………  
The Government will introduce legislation requiring that each new Bill introduced into Parliament, and delegated legislation subject to disallowance, be accompanied by a statement which outlines its compatibility with the seven core UN human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.”

While this change was announced by the previous government, such changes are continuing, and are not reversed by successive governments. The general direction remains the same. 

Interestingly, while the right to make an informed democratic vote is not part of the HRC’s agenda, recommended constitutional changes to support one particular race (aborigines) are part of the HRC report to government.

Now, as the OIC assumes the largest voting bloc in the UN, and attempts to control freedom of speech by outlawing criticism of Islam, we need to extremely vigilant  about who we are placing in charge of our human rights.

When fellow Australians, who we assume are on our side, glibly dismiss concerns by stating international agreements are non-binding, it is pertinent to request a more proactive response in support of Australia, and Australian values. 

The direction in which Australia is going is perfectly clear. Australians deserve the truth, a genuine democratic choice. It is simply not the Aussie way to sell your friends and neighbours out behind their backs.

Any system built upon deception, disloyalty, and abandonment of democracy, will have dire consequences. (bold added)

Sunday, 15 March 2015

Kingsman: the most subversive anti-AGW movie

Anthony Cox

Some movies are unintentionally anti-AGW because they are so pretentious like Atavar or just plain stupid like Noah.

Some are subtle and sly in their critique of AGW like Interstellar, a great movie or Captain America: The Winter Soldier another great piece of cinema.

But there is nothing subtle or sly about Kingsman: The Secret Service; this movie presents in Technicolour the awful nature of alarmists; they are elitist, narcissistic and misanthropic. And riddled in hypocrisy.

The villain is Valentine, played by Samuel Jackson. Valentine is another tech billionaire who despises his fellow man for causing AGW. His solution is to kill off 99.9% of the human population. 

His sales pitch to the rich and famous is classic alarmist agitprop. Valentine tells them that humans are a virus raising the temperature of the living Earth. If the virus isn’t destroyed the planet’s fever will worsen and either the planet will fight back and kill the disease of the disease will kill the planet.

The idea that humans are a disease or parasite has underpinned the AGW narrative and is espoused by all the leading AGW scientists and particularly AGW’s many rich supporters like Bill Gates.

In Kingsman Valentine is seen convincing Obama of his vision which is ironic since Obama’s chief scientist, John Holdren, is an avid supporter of forced reduction of humanity. In real life Obama would have taking no convincing.

Valentine, as the archetypal rich supporter of AGW,  has a tenuous hold on real life. He thinks he is living in a movie and can’t stand the sight of blood even though he is prepared to kill billions. 

Valentine is the perfect portrayal of the elitist loon who supports AGW. He has made his vast wealth from his society and now as a matter of vanity will destroy that society. The thought that his lifestyle will cease when the society is destroyed doesn’t enter his thinking. This is cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.

Valentine implants chips in the chosen ones so they can resist the doomsday device he has perfected. 

In a delicious twist all the elistists, including Obama (and Prince Charles) literally lose their heads when the device backfires.

The movie wittily portrays the religious nature of AGW belief when Valentine tests his device on a bible bashing Southern Baptist church. The message is plain: when religion claims to be fact trouble is inevitable. This is what has happened with AGW: it is religion masquerading as fact. Armed with the pseudoscience of AGW rich crackpots like Valentine can live out their dreams. At the end Valentine can’t tell reality from his ego generated bubble of fantasy.

The movie offers no formal solution to the blight of public corruption by the AGW scam and relies on a steadfast and very aggressive secret organisation to violently eradicate the AGW zealots and hypocrites.

We should be so lucky in the real world.