Friday, 29 December 2017

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions. Part 7

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions. Part 7: The Second Flinders Street Terrorist mentally deranged Attack.

Opinion: Anthony Cox

I wrote some time ago after the first Flinders Street Muslim terrorist attack about how this was part of an ISIS edict for Muslims to commit such vile acts by running over people with a car. Then the authorities and the media said it was not Islam but a mentally deranged person.

The same thing has happened almost a year later and the authorities and the media are still saying the same thing, that the terrorist was just mentally deranged and drug addled. No known terrorist links says the ABC and the rest of the fake news merchants. Focus is on the terrorist’s drug addiction, his poor mum makes the news demonstrating how peaceful her family is by attacking reporters and later says her son, the terrorist, is a beautiful boy.

This was a terrorist act. The video and photos are conclusive:

It doesn’t matter that the beautiful Muslim boy had no terrorist links or was on drugs. How many other drug addicts do this? How many other non-Muslims do this? None. Yet time after time here and elsewhere in the world Muslims, beautiful, drug-addled or otherwise do this, they kill people by running over them in cars. The beautiful son even said he did this because of the poor treatment of Muslims. But police are still looking for a motive. And premier Andrews or PM Turnbull did not even mention Muslims or Islam. And Duncan Lewis, the head of ASIO, who infamously said in reply to Pauline Hanson, that refugees are not involved in terrorism, has not commented on the fact that the beautiful son is a refugee.

So why are our leaders (sic) and media so unwilling to blame Islam for these attacks? Lewis and various policemen speak of cooperation with Muslims generally which will have benefits in intelligence against the few bad Muslims disposed to terrorism. This has been a dismal failure in the US. It can only be a dismal failure because Islam itself is against the West. This sort of capitulation and appeasement was a failure in the past, a failure during Obama’s sickly reign as POTUS and will continue to be a failure. This hasn’t stopped extraordinary expressions of Dhimmitude from within Europe, particularly from Sweden which has, at least from the viewpoint of its politicians, completely given in to Islam because as Swedish minister Jens Orback says:
We must be open and tolerant toward Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so toward us
 Sweden’s government even has advertisements declaring there is no way back from the effect of Islamic immigration. Another Swedish politician states Sweden now belongs to the (Muslim) immigrants.

So cowardice, as I said before, is at play. The politicians who manifest this craven fear are despicable creatures no doubt. But even the Western politicians who aren’t cowards misunderstand Islam. Islam is antithetically different from the West. These politicians, apart from the likes of Trump, are products of a left/liberal education and it is the world-view produced by this left-wing attitude which is proving to be the downfall of the West in the ongoing war with Islam. An ALP member and unionist Mitchell Goff sums it up:

We like to think of Islamism as being a construction of order, with a hierarchy that mirrors our own, and with a capacity to arrive at some negotiated position if it comes into conflict. But the moment we do that we miscategorise what it is that Islamism actually is. It is a radically different moral framework for confronting the world, one that comprises of allies and enemies, one in which the achievement of Paradise is most assuredly brought about through the physical destruction of the enemy. It is not without order or form, but it is not an order or form that is grounded in the ethic of individual worth as we understand it. It has no Pope, and so cannot move monolithically. Theological evolution is no simple task and it is often the case that a local imam’s idiosyncratically moderate interpretation of Islam has little relevance outside of his local community. Even then, moving the religion itself requires leaving a significant amount of theology at the door, or radically re-understanding it in a way that has simply not occurred for the most part of history. 

Terror attacks that we uselessly describe as “lone wolf” attacks require us to suspend everything we intrinsically understand about ideologies of this nature. They no more need people to spread than they do organisations. A terrorist doesn’t need to be a member of ISIS for us to understand that the ideology motivating him is the same ideology motivating ISIS. There may not be some traceable master-servant relationship, but there is, of course, a theological one. People looking for evidence of communication between a militant and a warlord seem to be barking up the wrong tree. How many more times does this have to happen before we stop providing excuses they’re not asking for or rationalisations that don’t fit the pattern?There is a method in these attacks that is replicated across time and space. The notion that they bear no relationship either to each other or to a broader ideology is simply wrong. Jihadist terror is a war tactic pulled out of an ideology of death. Jihadists understand how to manipulate our institutions because they understand our moral code and know that we don’t really have a strong ideological framework to repel bad ideas because, quite understandably, we’ve come to view traditionalist ideology or more specifically religion as the root of evil. As we constructed liberalism we failed to construct walls around it that enabled it to defend itself from illiberal ideologies like communism, fascism and (Islam).

Until the West’s media, academics, politicians and policy makers stop regarding Islam as something which can live in the West as part of the West the West will continue to have grievous problems with it.

Thursday, 21 December 2017

The war on coal is a war on the environment and the poor.

By Bryan Leyland and Tom Harris

China’s clean coal lesson

Former Vice President Al Gore should have used this month’s “24 Hours of Reality” internet broadcast to encourage the Trump administration to withdraw all carbon-dioxide emission rules on future power stations. Then the United States could replace its old, inefficient coal-fired power plants with modern, clean, efficient coal stations, just as they are doing in Europe, India and China.

One of the most damaging legacies of the Obama administration’s “war on coal” was the creation of a 2015 rule that limits carbon-dioxide emissions on new coal-fired stations to 1,400 pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. When releasing the new rule, entitled “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that it “is the performance achievable by a [supercritical pulverized coal] unit capturing about 20 percent of its carbon pollution.”

This makes no sense. Besides the fact that carbon dioxide is plant food and so the very opposite of pollution, the technology of carbon-dioxide capture on a full-scale power plant is still a technological fantasy. In fact, the agency was banning even the most modern, very efficient, supercritical coal-fired stations because their carbon-dioxide emissions are at least 20 percent above the EPA limit. Considering that America has 22.1 percent of the world’s proven coal reserves, the greatest of any country and enough to last for 381 years at current consumption rates, it is a tragedy that the U.S. can no longer build new, clean, coal-fired power stations to replace its aging fleet of coal plants.

Supercritical power plants operate at very high temperatures and pressures, resulting in significantly greater efficiencies than older technologies. Supercritical stations burn less coal per megawatt-hour produced and so benefit the environment and the electricity consumer.

A modern, highly efficient, supercritical coal-fired station with stack gas cleanup is very clean indeed, essentially emitting only water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The stack gas cleanup removes virtually all of the sulfur dioxide and the nitrous oxide, the real pollutants. The only thing it discharges that could be called a pollutant is the ash, and this is not difficult to contain if it is done properly.

Supercritical stations are now being built across the world, but not in the U.S. due to Mr. Obama’s misguided rule limiting carbon dioxide from future power stations. Clearly, that rule must be next on the chopping block after President Trump has done away with the Clean Power Plan.

As in past years, Mr. Gore used his marathon internet broadcast to promote unreliable wind and solar power, sources that are many times more expensive than coal. Testifying on Nov. 28 at the EPA’s public hearing on the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan in Charleston, W.Va., Robert E. Murray, president and CEO of Murray Energy Corp., explained, “Electricity from coal generation typically costs 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Renewable source generation costs 26 cents per kilowatt-hour, and it receives subsidies of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour from the taxpayers.” Renewables also benefit from free backup and many other advantages paid for by the consumer.

Wherever coal is phased out and wind and solar power are promoted, massive electricity price rises occur because of the wind and solar subsidies and the high cost of providing backup power when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

Ontario, Canada is a good example. [so is Australia, especially South Australia. -ED]

Ontario was once an industrial powerhouse and the home of hundreds of thousands of well-paid manufacturing jobs. But the province lost many of these jobs in the last decade-and-a-half when companies either went bankrupt or left Ontario. This happened largely because its electricity prices have increased over 200 percent since 2002.

Tom Adams, independent energy researcher and former board member of the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator explains, “The root cause of Ontario’s power rate cancer started with the coal phase-out.”

In the name of ‘stopping climate change,” the province shut down all of its inexpensive coal plants, which in 2002 provided about 25 percent of Ontario’s electricity. Yet, the province emits only 0.5 percent of world carbon-dioxide emissions, so even if these emissions mattered, the sacrifice was worthless. The fact that the Ontario government spent billions of dollars erecting about 8,000 industrial wind turbines only made matters worse. In a report co-authored with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, Mr. Adams concluded, “Solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost.”

When speaking at Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s 2013 news conference announcing her government’s Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act, Mr. Gore said, “Ontario has become the first regional jurisdiction in all of North America to take these steps on the burning of coal. Congratulations, Ontario, and thank you, Ontario. We can solve [the climate crisis] but we need to get busy and follow Ontario’s lead.”

Electricity market expert University of Montreal professor Pierre-Olivier Pineau said, “Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world.” And this is a major reason why Ontario is now a “have not” province that receives payments from Canada’s national equalization fund designed to help poorer provinces provide adequate services. Mr. Gore should be asked: Who will bail out the U.S. if indeed it does follow Ontario’s lead?

Bryan Leyland is an Auckland, New Zealand-based consulting engineer and the founding secretary and energy issues adviser of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Tom Harris is the executive director of ICSC.

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
28 Tiverton Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

More bad news for Alarmists: Correlation does not imply Causation.

Scott Adam's incisive comic strip Dilbert on Nov28, 2011 revealed that correlation does not imply causation.

Some biting examples from's 

Data Sources: US Census Bureau and National Science Foundation
Correlation: 98.51%

Hmmm.....well, how about -

Data Sources: US Dept of Agriculture and National Science Foundation
and the correlation percentage? 95.86%

There are many other Spurious Correlations on the site.

How about correlation between Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon dioxide?

We know that, from the Vostok Ice core data (re-graphed by Jo Nova)
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon  (dioxide) levels to rise. Carbon (dioxide) may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon (dioxide)’s role is minor.
Example: Source Jo Nova
Ok, Let's get a little more up to date. Here are the data for the last 10,000 years:


Not much correlation there!

And in the twentieth century, global temperature had three periods of rising temperature interspersed with periods of falling or neutral temperatures:

1850-2010 - source
and during these periods of rising and falling temperature, what was happening to atmospheric carbon dioxide? (The Scripps Institution started recording CO2 from 1958.)

Wood for Trees

You guessed it! Rising at a virtually constant rate. No correlation there!

Why do the Alarmists keep blaming innocent CO2?

Monday, 18 December 2017

Global Warming: Fake News from the Start

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Taichung coal-fired power plant in Taiwan, the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter
Note that CO2 is an invisible, odourless gas.
President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America. He could have made the decision simply because the science is false, but most of the public have been brainwashed into believing it is correct and wouldn’t understand the reason. 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, though thankfully not the U.S., support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they did, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax, on their citizens. 

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, or how little they assume the public know, by calling it a ‘carbon tax.’ But CO2 is a gas, while carbon is a solid. By calling the gas carbon, Trudeau and others encourage people to think of it as something ‘dirty’, like graphite or soot, which really are carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis. 

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview, for example, that “Polluters should pay.” She apparently does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant.

And, like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed PhD scientists who disagree with her government’s approach, labelling them “deniers.” She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do. That is why the official motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody's word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.

Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising considering that the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news. 

The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum following creation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). After spending five days at the U.N. with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded the overarching objective of the IPCC was political. “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda,” wrote Dewar.

The political agenda required ‘credibility’ to achieve the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee. 

U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception as he explained in a 1993 comment, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing…” 

In 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize a June 23, 1988 hearing where Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was to testify. Wirth explained in a 2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

Hansen did not disappoint. The New York Times reported on June 23, 1988:

“Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

Specifically, Hansen told the committee: 
"Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming...It is already happening now"
Hansen also testified:
"The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now...We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important."
Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. 
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied the Hatch Act that limits bureaucratic political actions, and, in 2011, was even arrested in a protest at the White House against the Keystone XL pipeline, at least his third such arrest to that point. 

Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was pre-disposed to believe Hansen and told the committee: 
''As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth's atmosphere gets warmer. Now, the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.”  
So, like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Wirth has either not read or not understood the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming; there are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong.

More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, that was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches across the world.

Trump must now end America’s participation in the fake science and the fake news of man-made global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all U.N. global warming programs, especially the IPCC as well as the agency that now directs it—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president’s goal of global energy dominance. 

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
28 Tiverton Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5


Note: To help ICSC cover its operating expenses, please go here:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -