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:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 22 October 2016

The Spotless Sun

Some News Reports

Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'

THE Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years. Experts say that solar activity as low as it currently has not been seen since the mini-ice age that took place between 1645 and 1715 – a period known as the Maunder Minimum where the entire Thames froze over.

Earth heading for ICE AGE as sun goes blank: Analysts reveal shock SUNSPOTS discovery
Analysis of the sun has revealed that there has been a sharp decrease in the amount of sunspots this year. Sunspots release solar flares and vast amounts of magnetic energy.For the fourth time this year, the sun has gone blank, which has led some experts to believe that a new Ice Age is on the horizon and could hit us by 2019.
The sun has gone blank twice this month. This is what it means
According to scientists, this unsettling phenomenon is a sign we are heading for a mini ice age.Meteorologist and renowned sun-watcher Paul Dorian raised the alarm in his latest report, which has sparked a mild panic about an impending Game of Thrones-style winter not seen since the 17th century.“For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank,” Mr Dorian says.
Image: NASA

Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030
The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University.

It is known that the Sun has its own magnetic field, the amplitude and spatial configuration of which vary with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere results in the changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, of the intensity of plasma flows coming from the Sun, and the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface. The study of changes in the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface has a cyclic structure vary in every 11 years that is also imposed on the Earth environment as the analysis of carbon-14, beryllium-10 and other isotopes in glaciers and in the trees showed.

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Alarmist Science doesn’t add up.

Anthony Cox

IPCC's standard of peer review

In 2010 the IPCC ‘science’ was found by the InterAcademy Council, the IAC, to be defective. David Stockwell and I wrote a piece about the IAC for The Drum in the days when the ABC was slightly balanced and was accepting sceptical articles. In that article we pointed out:

Here is what the IAC concluded about the IPCC's standard of peer review: 
"An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84 per cent of references in Working Group I, but only 59 per cent of references in Working Group II and 36 per cent of references in Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010)." 
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Nearly half the IPCC's science is not peer reviewed; it is grey literature, from interested parties like the WWF and Greenpeace; referencing them is like Clive Hamilton referencing Clive Hamilton. 
But it is just not the peer review failure of the IPCC; it is how the IPCC strays from its own criteria for establishing confidence in its [non] peer reviewed evidence. Confidence in scientific terms means what degree of uncertainty predictions about future climate and causes of that future climate have. 
For instance one of the IPCC's criteria, which is noted in the IAC report, is that it should "give greater attention to assessing uncertainties and confidence in [key findings]". It should also "Avoid trivializing statements just to increase their confidence [and] Determine the areas in your [the IPCC's] chapter where a range of views may need to be described... to form a collective view on uncertainty or confidence." 
What this means is that a true consensus requires "a range of views" on "uncertainty and confidence". Only when you truly know the scientific strengths and weaknesses of your evidence can you claim a consensus, bearing in mind a scientific consensus is only as good as the next scientific paper which may contradict it. The IPCC has actively quashed dissent to achieve its "collective view"; a very Lysenko state of affairs and a non-scientific consensus.

Peter Brobhaff has done a brilliant summary of the IAC’s findings about the IPCC’s defects and lists such things as political influence, bias and the many errors of alarmist science.

In Australia the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) was recently examined by a panel of statistical experts, The Technical Advisory Forum (Forum). The Forum found a number of defects with the BoM’s temperature record as Jennifer Marohasy notes. In fact, the recommendations by the Forum deal with profound defects including inadequate uncertainty parameters, inadequate treatment of regional temperature sites and transparency of methodology. In short the Forum found much the same problems with the BoM as the IAC found with the IPCC.

Now a peer reviewed paper published under the auspices of the Royal Society has found incorrigible Poor research design and data analysis by alarmistscience. This had led to false positive results about whether alarmism is even happening. The Paper finds that institutional corruption which requires no further conscious acts of lying by individual scientists in alarmism has created a self-perpetuating conclusion that alarmism is correct.

This paper isdevastating. It claims that the money and other reinforcements of prestige and success ensure that all new alarmist papers conform to alarmism. This is not science but gross propaganda and a corruption of the scientific process. As sceptical scientist Pat Michaels says:

So, instead of being rewarded for research that supports a prior hypothesis, no matter how sloppy it is, those involved in climate studies get published a lot not by testing (which can’t be done in the prospective sense) but by producing dire, horrific results. Because these often appear in prominent journals — which love to feature articles that generate big news stories — the greater the horror, the more likely is promotion, citation and more money.

This then generates more and more of these perverse incentives in a vicious cycle.

All of this is well and good and could be dismissed as just another example of how incentives drive supposedly dispassionate scientists. But in several fields, like climate, the accumulation of horrific literature is often summarized by governments, usually to support some policy. Bad science then justifies bad policy.

It is quite significant that Smaldino and McElreath’s paper was published by the Royal Society. Surely they know the result will be more distrust of the modern scientific enterprise, and, by extension, in the policies supported by it. The fact of its publication is evidence that we have reached a turning point, where the pollution of modern science is now an accepted truth.

The issue is, as much as the manifest corruption of science caused by alarmism, why do our politicians continue to base policy and waste $$$billions on programs which are justified by the corrupt alarmist science.

Friday, 7 October 2016

South Australian Blackout. What does the future hold for South Australia.

Terence Cardwell

Image: GWPF
South Australian Blackout.  What does the future hold for South Australia.
It has become clear now that the failure of the South Australian Grid system was caused by the erratic behaviour, and then the sudden auto-shutdown, of the wind generators.  This substantially increased the load on the Victoria-to-South Australia interconnector, which exceeded the maximum allowable load and tripped the overload system.

The badly-built towers that fell over would have been isolated in just one-tenth of a second by the system protection mechanism, and if the grid system had sufficient stable base-load power you would have seen just a ‘bump’ on the system voltage and frequency graphs, but this would have been nothing that it couldn’t handle under normal circumstances.

The New South Wales system could lose 2 x 660 MW units and still recover stability after the spinning reserve and the unit’s load maximum rate pickups came into action, all within a matter of seconds.  But South Australia was a very under-protected and unstable grid system, with many little gas-fire powered stations trying to hang on to an insane setup.

There is no doubt it will happen again and again; this was not a once off.

It seems that the ‘Greens’ who brought this about are very slow to learn anything intelligent, and this

Saturday, 1 October 2016

The South Australian Statewide Blackout

Terence Cardwell
Image: GWPF

A     I predicted this would happen back in 2009/10 in my first article.  This is NOT a once off event- it will happen again in the not too distant future and continue to do so. Why; because of the continual instability created in the grid system by the constantly changing wind generators and insufficient stable, reliable power generation and the reliance of power from Victoria, who have to continually get them out of their insane situation.

B.            Any change in power generation from the wind generators has to be compensated for and chased by thermal power generation units which  decreases their efficiency substantially and more than obviates any gain from wind generators. These severe load changes can create a power wave within the grid system that can create instability as the thermal units chase the wind generators severe load changes.

C.            Because the winds were so severe the wind generators would have been non operative and locked. So 40% of the power was already out of service before the blackout. So YES the wind generators DID cause the blackout by increasing the load substantially on the Victoria to S.A interconnector.

D.            If the wind generators were allowed to operate in such severe winds they would have torn themselves apart.

E.             It is the first time ever in the history of power generation in Australia that transmission towers have fallen over and we have seen far more severe weather than S.A. I have personally

Friday, 30 September 2016

Alan Jones talks with Dr Jennifer Marohasy

Alan quotes John Clark from Burrado who wrote:
The Greens may as well have sent a message to the South Australians to save the planet from Global Warming, you are going to have to live part of your life in the dark.
People have been told to prepare for "hotter and drier" but are getting "colder and wetter."

Alan says that the alarmists have told there were going to be floods; Jennifer's research shows that Forbes has a major flood every seven years.
They have had repeated flooding......1952 was the worst flood. In terms of rainfall, 1950 was record rainfall in Forbes........yet  CSIRO and the bureau (of Meteorology) says it's going to get drier.
Full Interview here

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Outright false to claim CO2 causes global mean temperature to go up or down

Prof Terry J. Lovell says:
To say CO2 causes global mean temperature to go up or go down is scientifically unproven and, given the current data, it’s false – outright false. 

There is no  such thing as human caused global warming. It’s a scam!