We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

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

Thursday, 3 September 2015

No global warming for 18 years 8 months!

Climate Depot reports:

Special To Climate Depot
The Pause lengthens yet again
A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 8 months

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since January 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). 

With this month’s RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) temperature record, the Pause sets a new record at 18 years 8 months.
Read More at Climate Depot

When is Climate Change Science not a science?

Last year, ABC's Landline (3/2014) presented a program titled The Fruits of Labour about an amazing man called Bob Brinsmead and his vision to create an agri-tourism adventure - Tropical Fruit World.

ABC's Landline

BOB BRINSMEAD: We bought it primarily as a nice place to live. This was a great place to raise a family. We just loved avocados. The whole family, we were, like, addicted to avocados. And there weren't many around, but there were a few trees on this property from the old (government) experimental farm. It wasn't long before we had about 3,000 avocado trees. But then, we wanted more than avocados. 

MEGAN WOODWARD, REPORTER: At 80 years of age, Bob Brinsmead is a man who always has and still does want more from his tropical fruit farm. He moved to the region as a 12-year-old and has called this property home since the early 70s.

BOB BRINSMEAD: Because of its micro-climate and the type of soil we have, it's ideal for a great range of tropical fruit growing. And we began growing all the common types of tropical fruit - mangoes, bananas, guavas, custard apples, macadamia nuts. And then having exhausted that, then my interest extended to: what other fruits are there out there in the world? 

MEGAN WOODWARD: There are now more than 500 different types of tropical fruit grown here, representing every inhabited continent in the world. 

 And Bob's Final Word on Landline:

The kids grew up here, they spent their time helping to pick some of the fruit, planting the new kinds of fruit. Often, I guess, it became irksome to them sometimes to drag irrigation pipes around, but we've modernised since those days. We've made provision as a family this remains as an ancestral home. We were offered the - by the local planning authorities, they offered to include this territory here in the future urban planning for the Tweed, and we said we're not interested. And we want to maintain what it is. 
Bob is also a member of the Australian Environment Foundation and a Climate Sceptic. He has previously written of the man made global warming hoax : An Irrational Fear of Carbon.

Dr Wes Allen and Bob Brinsmead

Now Bob poses a question:

When is Climate Change Science not a science?
  1. When it appeals to the authority of consensus.
  2. When it uses the ad hominem card against its sceptics.
  3. When it says that “the science is settled” and “the debate is closed.”
  4. When it promotes a theory that cannot be falsified.
  5. When it is driven by a “confirmation bias”, reporting only findings that appear to support it and hiding those that don’t.
  6. When it exaggerates the extent and dangers of climate change.
  7. When it fails to acknowledge the uncertainties of the science.
  8. When it refuses to acknowledge any positive aspects of climate change - like the benefits of rising CO2 levels and a greener world.
  9. When it demonizes scepticism and lauds blind faith.
  10. When it becomes dependent on Government support and fails to maintain a prudent separation of Science and State.

A “science” that fails these ten basic tests begins to look suspiciously like The Church of Climatology rather than a science.

The Lancet Commissions: Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health

The Lancet Commissions

Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health

(L) Dr Wes Allen and his publisher Bob Brinsmead

Critiqued by Dr D Weston Allen MBBS, FRACGP, Grad Dip Phys Med


The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, comprising 45 international multidisciplinary academics (29 PhD’s and one MD) headed by Nick Watts (MA), released its freely available report online on 23 June. Its laudable intention (stated on page 1) was to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide.” The UCL-Lancet Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change had published a report prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit of 2009; and this report is timed to precede the Paris Convention beginning 30 November.

An Editorial in Australian Doctor by Jo Hartley on 3 July 2015 alerted me to this Lancet report, which is already making quite an impression on medical editors, authors, colleges, Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) and other organisations. The reader may be wondering why a full-time GP would want to critique this Lancet Commissions report. Having a keen interest in health promotion since the 1970s,1, 2 in experimental science since the 1980s,3, 4 evidence-based medicine since the 1990s and climate science since the early 2000s,5 I downloaded and examined this report. I found it to contain useful information and worthwhile suggestions, but also enough problems to warrant a critique.

I have observed two polarised positions on climate change: those who think it is real but entirely natural, who label dissenters as ‘warmists’ or ‘lukewarmers’; and those who think it is entirely anthropogenic and dangerous, who predict catastrophe unless we decarbonise, who classify dissenters as deniers, and who lay claim to a 97% scientific consensus (Cook et al 2013).6 A more specific and comprehensive survey of over

Monday, 31 August 2015

Scepticism and burden of Proof

Don Aitken on his blog has a thought provoking piece titled:

Am I a sceptic? I think so.

Describing his scepticism, Don says:
What is it to be sceptical about something? My own meaning is that where I am not sure about something I think is important, and can’t reasonably be sure, I am sceptical about claims. That doesn’t mean I think it’s wrong, whatever it is; it is simply that I am not in a position to make a proper judgment. Some other person or organisation may be sure, but that is no real help to me. I need to make up my own mind about it, and for the moment I can’t. Therefore I don’t accept the proposition, at least for the moment. Quine would call it the state of ‘suspended judgment’, one of non-belief rather than of disbelief.
Don then moved on to " a neat little series of thoughts on the issue of scepticism on the Fabius Maximus website..."  by Marcello Truzzi (bold added)
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact”. Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a

Saturday, 29 August 2015

More Climate Alarmism Refuted

Source: Tallbloke


John Hinderaker writing for Power Line: (bold added)
It isn’t quite true to say that the science is settled–climate science is in its infancy, and we have only a poor understanding of the Earth’s climate. Just about every proposition is controversial. But we are very close to being able to say that, as to global warming alarmism, the debate is over and the alarmists have lost. (I mean, of course, the scientific debate, not the political one, which never had much to do with science in the first place.)
Read More: Power Line

= = = = = = = = = = =

ICSC Chief Tom Harris for the Washington Times:

Deceptive temperature record claims

Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis
The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter. 
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.  
As Jay Lehr, science director of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute said, “It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before.”
Read More Here

= = = = = = = = = = =

Judith Curry, writing on her blog Climate etc reviews a new paper by the UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) team.

The paper:

Britain's solar boom over

Political Editor of the UK Telegraph, writes
Britain's solar boom is over after ministers announced they would offer virtually no subsidies for people to install panels on their homes. 
In a surprise move, ministers on Thursday said that they plan to slash the amount of money given to families who put solar panels on their homes. 
Under the new proposals, the amount paid to homeowners under the “feed-in tariff” from next year will fall by nearly 90 per cent. Experts said that it will lower the payments to households by around £192  (AU$ 412) a year.
Solar subsidies are a virtual reverse Robin Hood effect; the Rich robbing the poor:
Critics say the scheme, which was heavily pushed by energy firms, enables wealthy families to rake in subsidies paid for by many who are already struggling with their energy bills. 
Renewables are really not viable without subsidies.
Last week, a source at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) told the Telegraph: “[Energy secretary Amber Rudd] is determined to get a grip of these out-of-control subsidies and make sure that hardworking billpayers are getting a fair deal.” Decc did not respond to a request to clarify or confirm the comments.

Thursday, 27 August 2015

UN IPCC -an alarmist organisation

Mad Men of Climate Alarmism
Cartoons by Josh
Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #34
IPCC is alarmist
Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response.
UNSkeptical UNScience (SS) says

Climate scientist Roy Spencer made this statement:
"Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change."
He starts by suggesting something highly questionable isn’t open to being questioned. What he seeks to do is suggest, by inference, that the IPCC has an agenda, and this distorts the reports they produce. In other words, Spencer (and others) suggest that the IPCC exaggerates what the science says in favour of anthropogenic global warming. It is perfectly legitimate to question this assertion, since Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.

However,  SS is wrong when they say Spencer and others offer no evidence to support it.. The IPCC in their PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK (Para 2) and again on their page on Organisation History:
"...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation 

Anthony Cox writes

IPCC is alarmist

See items 1, 106, 110 (tipping points) As much as they can, that’s their business. 

As Jay Leno said: 
According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet. 
But seriously alarmism is exactly that: exaggerated, hyperbolic, emotional, half-true, not true. 

Schneider set the tone with his infamous advice about selling the message. His double ethical bind doesn’t exist; as a scientist if he has to think about telling the truth he isn’t a scientist; he was an advocate full stop. 

They’re all advocates with their dreadful, always wrong predictions like Flannery, or their odious comparisons, deniers are worse than Nazis from Hamilton

Alarmists like Suzuki want to jail sceptics

Alarmists think anyone who disagrees with AGW is insane and needs to be treated

Alarmists want to spend other people’s money, abolish capitalism and reduce population

Alarmists have to invoke “scary scenarios”, to quote Schneider, because their solutions to this non-existent problem are themselves so alarming. 

In technical terms the alarmism of AGW is seen in its estimates of climate sensitivity (see items 7, 34, 101)

Because alarmists use the wrong statistical methods they conclude temperature can go up forever (see items 30, 73, 91, 110). This is wrong.