Thursday, 23 November 2017

Why is James Cook University trying to get RIDD of Professor Peter?

PROFESSOR PETER RIDD is Professor of Physics at James Cook University (Townsville) with particular interests in coastal oceanography, including human impacts on coral reefs. He has published over100 papers in international science journals. He is a contributor to the recently published Climate Change – The Facts 2017.

Professor Peter Ridd:
“Policy science concerning the Great Barrier Reef is almost never checked. Over the next few years, Australian governments will spend more than a billion dollars on the Great Barrier Reef; the costs to industry could far exceed this. Yet the keystone research papers have not been subject to proper scrutiny. Instead there is a total reliance on the demonstrably inadequate peer-review process” 
and, as quoted in this article by Graham Lloyd:
“We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. 
“The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.” 
This blogger is no scientist but, surely, someone calling for scientific integrity should be exalted and not excommunicated.

And that is what James Cook University is trying to do.
JCU responded in late August by launching a formal investigation for misconduct which could result in Professor Ridd’s employment being terminated. 
Professor Ridd engaged legal counsel, with new accusations being made by JCU and Federal Court action being lodged by him.
As suggested by a friend, John: might assist Peter if a firm but polite email was sent to VC Professor Sandra Harding along the lines that skepticism is the hallmark of good science.

See also:

Monday, 20 November 2017

Open Letter to Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23

Open Letter to

Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23 

Frank Bainimarama

From Nils-Axel Mörner
Pamela Matlack-Klein

Mr. President,

The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).

We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all threats of an approaching general sea level flooding are totally unfounded.

Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the centre, the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.

These are the facts
  • Sea level has remained virtually at the present level over the last 200 years
  • In the last 50-70 years, sea level has remained perfectly stable in Fiji
  • This stability is indicated by the growth of corals (stopped to grow vertically and forced to grow laterally into microatolls) – and corals do not lie.
We have (with references at the end) 
  • Studied your tide gauge records – Mörner & Matlack-Kelin, 2017a
  • Studied sites of coastal erosion – Mörner & Matlack-Klein, 2017b
  • Documented sea level change during the last 500 years in great details – Mörner & Matlakc.Kelin, 2917c
  • Noted the close similarity to similar records in nations like the Maldives, Bangladesh and India – Mörner, 2017
  • We have presented our data at conferences in Rome (4th WCCC, October 19-21, 2017) and Düsseldorf (11th EIKE, November 9-10, 2017) – see: Clutz, 2017 and Tallblok’s Talkshop, 2017)

Figure 1. The critical depth for coral growth is 40 cm below low-tide-level (when the photo was taken). If sea level is not rising the corals are forced to grew laterally. We have studied several such cases at several different sites in the Fiji. We undertake radiocarbon dating at al numver of sites of the dead center always with ages as ”younger than 1950”, implying that sea level has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years – and corals do not lie.
(from Mörner & Matlack-Klein, 2017d)

Figure 2. Sea level changes in the Yasawa Island of Fiji (from Mörner & Matlack-Klein, 2917c). Sea level was high in the 16th and 17th century (1), low in the 18th century (2) and at about the present level over the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries (3) wit a somewhat highe level in the eary 19th century and with a perfectly stabe sea level during the last 50-70 years as indicated by C14-dated microatolls at multiple sites. Consequently there is a total absence of a present sea level rise – i.e. the threat of a future flooding is liftet off.
 Our data (Mörner & Matlack-Klein, 2017c) indicate:

1. Absence of a present rise in sea level during the last 50-70years
2. Global predominance of rotational eustasy during the last 500 years

Our message (or rather plead) to You as President COP23 is

Listen to your own field evidence in the Fiji islands
they indicate no rise in sea level
Be faithful to the message from the Fiji corals
they indicate full sea level stability since 1950

In the true spirit of the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau let us say:

Retournons la Nature

That is setting field evidence in the centre

instead of models and ideas driven by political and/or religious agendas

Stockholm, November 12, 2017
Nils-Axel Mörner
Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005)
President of the INQUA Commission on 
Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003)
Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000-2007)
Chairman of the INTAS project on
Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003)
Leader of the Fiji New Sea Level Project (2016-2017)
Patronus Skytteanus of the Skytte Foundation at Uppsala University (1979-2017+)
Awarded the Golden Condrite of Merit from Algarve University (2008) “for his irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”
Author of several hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers and several books

Pamela Matlack-Klein co-author and co-investigator The Portuguese Sea Level Project

Acknowledgements: Our research group has had the pleasure to undertake sophisticated studies in the Fiji Islands. We have become much in love with the remarkable nature and the wonderful local people of the Yasawa Islands. Our criticism should be seen as a sign of our respect to the irrefragable field evidence, and the nice local people that certainly deserve straight-forward and unbiased information with respect to their own future environments.
Mörner N-A, Matlack-Klein P (2017a) The Fiji tide-gauge stations. International Journal of Geoscience, 8: 536-544.
Mörner N-A, Matlack-Klein P (2017b) Coastal erosion in the Yasawa Islands, Fiji. Nature Science, 9 (5): 136-142.
Mörner N-A (2017c) Our Oceans – Our Future: New evidence-based records from the Fiji Islands for the last 500 years indicating rotational eustasy and absence of a present rise in sea level. International Journal of Earth & Environmental Sciences, 2: 137.
Mörner N-A, Matlack-Klein P (2017d) New records of sea level changes in the Fiji Islands. Submitted, under reviewing.
Mörner N-A (2017) Coastal morphology and sea level changes in Goa, India, during the last 500 years. Journal of Coastal Research, 33: 421-434.
DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00015.1

Clutz R (2017). Fear not for Fiji. Science Matters
Tallbloke’s Talkshop (2017) WCCC4 Rome: Interview with Nils-Axel Mörner morner/

Saturday, 18 November 2017

Renewable Energy Jobs at $68 million each. WOW!

Image: Clare Solar Farm
From Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun (link)

The Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palasczcuk, was promoting green energy at the Clare Solar Farm. Resources Minister Matt Canavan calculates the astonishing waste: 
"The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years  for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job." 
Actually, it works out at $68M per job.  But that is for 13 years; so it works out at $5.23M per job per year.

The Queensland Premier was at the Clare Solar Farm on Sunday promoting renewables jobs. Here are a few facts about the Clare Solar Farm.
1. The Clare Solar Farm once operational will employ “up to around 5 people” according to their website.
2. The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years (paid through by higher power bills) for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job.
3. The Clare Solar Farm is owned by a Saudi billionaire, Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel. I have nothing against billionaires (or Saudis for that matter) but I have noted that the Premier has something against Indian billionaires, specifically the one that owns Adani.
4. The Adani mine will generate 10,000 jobs and, even if they are provided a $1 billion loan (not a subsidy!), that works out at $100,000 a job. That is a little bit cheaper than $60 million a job. And remember this is a loan that will be paid back not a subsidy!
5. Guess which of these projects the Premier has decided to veto? I will give you a hint, it is the one that the Premier’s partners the Greens don’t like.

Monday, 6 November 2017

Zack Hill's cartoonists outshine UQ's cartoonist John Cook.

University of Queensland research assistant professor and Cartoonist John Cook runs a blog called UNSkeptical UNScience and draws UNFunny comic strips such as this:

and for some reason, Cook likes to dress in Nazi SS (Skeptical Science?) uniforms and fraudulently identify as some-one else. (link)

THAT is really not funny, John.

Although, in this strip, Cook inadvertently reveals some truths about the fraud of the global warming alarmists:

Each panel reveals truths of the Falsified Man-made Global Warming Hypothesis; however, for the first revelation, look at the first panel:

Meanwhile another couple of cartooning Johns (Deering and Newcombe) get closer to the truth of climate change.

They co-author a cartoon called Zack Hill, about an 8 year old boy and his friends and his dog, a Boston called Cagney.

Zach's mother runs a boarding house with an unusual array of permanent guests; two of whom are Greenie Vince (above centre)  and hard right man Carl (right above) (Zach in Halloween pumpkin.)

Look at this series of cartoons from 2014 ridiculing the fraud of man-made global warming:

Friday, 3 November 2017

The young and the ignorant are too frequently brainwashed.

"The young and the ignorant are too frequently brainwashed."

Astrophysicist Dr Gordon J Fulks

They see science as 100% political and hence subject to a 'majority rules' political mandate.  The author (Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna) is a student at Stanford with a degree in political science and a minor in 'race and ethnicity.'  He obviously has no scientific training, because he has no clue that science is based on logic and evidence only, not authority and consensus.  You might think that he would suspect that authority and consensus are logical fallacies because that has been known since the time of Aristotle.  But in our Post-Modern world, I doubt that college students ever pay attention to the wisdom that has been with us for forty centuries.

They certainly will never understand what Nobel Laureate in Physics Richard Feynman meant when he said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" or what Albert Einstein meant by "One man can prove me wrong."  And they have likely never heard the motto of the British Royal Society: "Take no one's word for it."  That expressed the determination of the Fellows to avoid the domination of authority and to make decisions based on data gathered by experiment.

In his book "Fashionable Nonsense," the well-known Professor of Physics and Mathematics Alan Sokal talks about how Post-Modernists go so far as to deny the value of truth.  They certainly do not care in the least what the truth is about Global Warming or anything else in science.  It is just a means to a political end.  And they have no conscience about wrecking science in the process because they feel that it is not relevant to their existence.

Kenna is correct that the segment of the public that believes in Global Warming does so because they think that others do too.  Studies of attitudes show that those who profess belief do so primarily because they believe that they have the scientific community behind them.  Hence the need among propagandists to keep that myth alive.  But if Kenna had actually read Maibach's study of attitudes among the professional members of the American Meteorological Society, he would have realized that the consensus is weak and nowhere near the claimed 97%.  Furthermore, those who support it do so for the wrong reasons: their Leftist politics and their belief that everyone else believes as they do.  Skeptics, in contrast, argue the science.  That makes their position far sturdier, a conclusion that bothered Maibach.  He was looking for a weakness in skeptics, not in alarmists!

As we discovered after the Korean War, those who have been brainwashed find it nearly impossible to unlearn the propaganda that has been drilled into them.  Only the most intelligent can do so.  But they are the ones who likely did not succumb in the first place.


NEW PAPER: California sea level rise: Evidence based forecasts vs. model predictions

California sea level rise: Evidence based forecasts vs. model predictions

Thursday, 2 November 2017

The big misconception

Edwin Berry, PhD, CCM

The whole global-warming/climate-change fraud is built upon one big misconception, namely, that our carbon dioxide emissions continue to add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC and other climate alarm groups merely “assume” their claim is true.

Yes, the IPCC has arguments to support its hypothesis, but all its arguments fail the scientific method. Their arguments violate the Equivalence Principle of physics and make outrageous, even laughable, incorrect predictions. Therefore, the alarmists have no existing argument to support their most basic claim. If we follow physics, their game is over.

On the flip side, I have proposed a model hypothesis that shows a completely different view of how human and natural emissions contribute to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. My model accurately predicts the carbon-14 data. The IPCC model does not. My model makes no known incorrect predictions.

My model is independent of, but fully compatible with, the hypothesis that the rate of change of carbon dioxide is proportional to temperature. In fact, my method identifies the constants in this proportionality.

In keeping with the scientific method, I cannot prove my model hypothesis is true. However, it is now the ONLY existing hypothesis on this subject that has not been proven to be wrong.

An analogy

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like water in a lake. The inflow of carbon dioxide is like a river that flows into the lake. The outflow of carbon dioxide is like the lake water that flows out over a dam. When outflow equals inflow, the lake level equals its balance level.

If inflow becomes greater than outflow, the lake level will rise and increase the outflow. When outflow equals inflow, the lake level will equal its new balance level.

Inflow sets the balance level, not only for the lake but also for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The level will always move toward the balance level set by the inflow.

Continued constant inflow will not increase the level. Continued constant inflow only maintains the level.

A paradigm shift

Our carbon dioxide emissions increase the carbon dioxide inflow into the atmosphere. Like our lake analogy, this increased inflow adds to the level, which increases outflow. As the level approaches its balance level, outflow approaches inflow. When outflow equals inflow, the level equals its balance level.

When the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its balance level, continuation of constant human carbon dioxide emissions will not further increase the level of carbon dioxide.

Like the accelerator on your car. A constant accelerator maintains vehicle speed. Release the accelerator and vehicle speed decreases.

The human-produced balance level and the nature-produced balance level are independent. But they add to create a total balance level.  

This is a paradigm shift in how we should view the effect of human carbon dioxide emissions on the level of carbon dioxide.

Our emissions DO NOT continue to add to the level and DO NOT create an irreversible level. Our emissions only maintain the human-produced balance level that adds to the nature-produced balance level. Balance levels quickly reverse when emissions decrease.