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:

Tuesday, 23 August 2016

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions

Anthony Cox

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them ( Karl Popper).

The media coverage of Islam in Australia with a few exceptions defends Islam by defaulting to a number of stock positions such as:
  1. Terrorism is not part of Islam
  2. Terrorists are not part of Islam
  3. Islam is a religion of peace
  4. Most Muslims are peaceful, moderate and support Western values
  5. Halal certification is not a problem
  6. Islam is not taking over
  7. The birth rate in Islam is not more than non-Muslims.
  8. Criticising Islam will make things worse
  9. The West has caused terrorism
  10. Women wear the burqa willingly
  11.  Islam does not need to change

And so on.

I have written a number of essays on Islam and I plan to look at some of the common myths or excuses given by the media and politicians to explain Islam to the wider community.

A common myth is that Islamic women willingly wear the burqa and other Islamic clothing. On general principles it makes no sense to assume a rational person would willingly subscribe to and subject themselves to such restrictions as imposed by Islamic dress.

While it is true many Muslim women not only wear such restrictive and defining clothing but advocate it, does this make it right or even an act of free will?

Islam is defined by its oppression of women. In many Islamic nations women have no status at all. The psychological effect of this lack of rights is profound. Many studies have found that when humans are subject to oppression they often take on and support their oppressors. This effect is known as the Stockholm Syndrome.

The Stockholm Syndrome is related to the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments where an analysis of responses to authority was made. The conclusions these studies provided is that people conform to authority even when it is against their and other person’s interests and even unethical. This can explain why Muslim women not only accept their lack of status and power within Islam but also why Islamic women cooperate in that oppression against other women in such barbaric practises as female genital mutilation and honour killings which are frequent in Islamic societies.

It also explains why women willingly accept the restriction of Islamic clothing. The Muslim clothing is a separating and defining aspect of Islam. It works as a uniform, distinguishing the Islamic woman, marking her as a possession of Islam and separate from Western values.

France has banned the burqa as have other nations. Apart from the practical aspect of security and identification the banning of the burqa has great symbolic value. The presence of a burqa on a Western street echoes what Turkish leader Erdoğan said about Mosques:

That is a burqa asserts that Islam is present along with Islamic values. Just as Sharia, halal and other Islamic values are an intrusion by Islam into Western society so is the burqa.

Regardless of whether Muslim women willingly wear the burqa, which seems both unlikely and irrational, it remains an assault on Western values. For this reason the burqa and other Islamic dress should be banned in Western society.

Sunday, 21 August 2016

Brian Cox vs Malcolm Roberts QandA analyzed by 1000Frolly

1000Frolly analyses statements made by prof Brian Cox on "our" ABC's QandA.

At 8:40 for instance, Tony Jones says: "What would happen if we reached 2%?"

He probably meant a temperature rise of 2ºC???

Scaremonger Cox replies: "There are some shocking predictions....."  "Absolute Absolute consensus!" (Consensus is not a scientific term, Brian. It is a political term. Ed)

1000Frolly then points out that Brian Cox brought out an entirely fraudulent GISS graph and continues to annihilate Brian Cox' "evidence" whilst also pointing out some minor blemishes in Malcolm Robert's case.

Perhaps 1000Frolly is being a little pedantic when he says that Malcolm is wrong referring to NASA when he actually means GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) Actually GISS is an arm of NASA and mostly is written NASA:GISS. (Brian also referred to NASA and not NASA:GISS.)

1000Frolly points out that millions are dead because of "climate action" - in particular ethanol is mandated in many countries; depleting food supplies and forcing up the price of food.

Malcolm says: "The models have all been proven wrong - hopelessly wrong."
Brian: "Well, no. You cross check them with the past and they do quite nicely."

Brian, do some research. You are out of your field. The models failed to predict the past.

Although Brian Cox says the opposite, CO2 is not the cause but the effect of both changes in sea surface temperature and changes in air temperature.

#IPCC #agwHoax #QandA

Malcolm Roberts: Fairfax insults.

Anthony Cox

Fairfax is second only to the ABC in its witless support for alarmism and belief in man-made global warming (AGW). The 20.8.2016 edition of the Newcastle Herald featured 2 particularly stupid alarmist articles.

The first was by Wendy Squires and it was squalid in its sneering and vapid insult of recently elected senator Malcolm Roberts who recently made mince-meat of the darling of the alarmist groupies, professor Brian Cox.

Squires said Roberts bleated, was a climate change denier and a climate change conspiracist. She also said Roberts was presented with evidence of AGW by professor Cox when he produced his NASA temperature graph. I suppose if professor Cox cannot understand that the graph he produced was rubbish we can hardly expect a second rate journalist to have the intelligence to understand.

In fact, it is quite easy to show that the NASA graph professor Cox used is based on shonky and fiddled data. All one has to do is look at the evolution of the NASA temperature record and compare its 1981 temperature record with its current one:

The evidence of tampering is even more plain when one looks at the adjustments by NASA in this graph from Steve Goddard. The 2014 version is the one the poseur professor Cox used.

Squires ends her petty article by claiming Roberts will drown in the alarmist shibboleth of rising seas. As we see the seas around Newcastle where Squires regurgitated this rot are not rising; sea level fell to 1983, rose to 2000 and has been stable since:

The second article is by the ALP’s shadow assistant minister for Climate Change, Pat Conroy. Being a minister for climate change is like being a minister for air, pointless. But the ALP’s support for alarmism is more egregious than Squire’s tripe.

Government support for renewable energy in Australia runs to 10s of billions. Every cent of that vast expenditure is wasted because renewables do not work; they cannot supply grid power at a base load or peaking level. That fact hasn’t stopped the ALP because Industry Super Funds invest heavily in renewables. They do so because of ALP government mandates. These investments have turned out badly. It is a huge financial churn with government subsidies and union controlled super masking the complete uselessness of renewables. Given this it is hardly surprising for an ALP, ex-union hack like Conroy to come out and vilify a genuine politician like Roberts with no skin in the corrupt renewable process and who is exposing the only reason for renewables, alarmism.

Conroy’s article is a litany of the usual arguments alarmists throw around: comparing sceptics to cigarette advocates, using appeals to authority, censoring, the science is settled. It is complete junk and Conroy is revealed as just another ridiculous politician.

The serious aspect of Conroy’s rubbish is however the vast money his party will waste if re-elected. 

Conroy says the ALP will seek to commit Australia to net zero pollution by 2050 and a 45 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030, consistent with the advice of the Climate Change Authority.

This level of delusion will destroy Australia. In 2010 a bunch of green zealots called Beyond Zero Emissions proposed, like Conroy, zero emissions of CO2. This plan was examined by 2 engineers, Peter Lang and Martin Nicholson who agreed it could be done at a cost of over $4 trillion (in 2010) and a reduction in electricity use of over 60%. That’s 4 times Australia’s total annual GDP and going without electricity for over 4 days of the week.

Despite the ulterior motives of alarmists like the fools Squires and Conroy their madness is that they actually believe this destructive and deluded nonsense. If they get their way, the Australian economy will be destroyed. The fact alarmists like Squires and Conroy and Fairfax are so stridently attacking Roberts shows they realize he is a danger to their belief in alarmism. This is why Malcolm Roberts, an engineer, must be supported.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Malcolm Roberts and ABC's QandA

Anthony Cox

Malcolm Roberts and Q & A

The recently elected senator, Malcolm Roberts was invited onto Q & A. Q & A is the ABC’s premier current affairs program. Like the rest of the ABC it is implacably pro alarmist. So at first blush having a declared sceptic on this program would seem to indicate some balance by the ABC.

Unfortunately, this was not so. On the rest of the panel were 4 devout alarmists. Linda Burney clearly was out of her depth and contented herself with scorning and insulting Malcolm Roberts.

Lily Serna, the described mathematician, gushed and fluttered her eyes at professor Brian Cox, surrounded herself with hyperbole and moral platitudes and Greg Hunt was his usual unctuous self.

Brian Cox shows a graph that shows
of causation by man's CO2 emissions
The real revelation was professor Brian Cox. Some assumed Brian Cox would present a reasonable viewpoint. This was quickly contradicted by his first speech on climate change. The facts were shocking he said. In fact, they were so shocking he said shocking again.

Not one word that come out of Cox’s mouth had any verisimilitude. The temperature was rising, and not just rising but accelerating he said. Malcolm quickly referred to the Central English Temperature [CET] record and the verified temperature pause and data corruption.

The word corruption enraged Cox who at this early stage was producing graphs of temperature and CO2 quicker than James Hansen gets arrested. Jones piped in with another glowing description of Cox’s prestige as a premier scientist and Lily gushed in Cox’s direction.

So it went with the usual ABC balanced audience consisting of dangerously intelligent young people, according to Greg Hunt, laughing vigorously at Malcolm at every opportunity and calling professor Cox a legendary scientist. And Hunt embellished Cox’s arguing from authority and consensus with examples of his government’s support of consensus such as the Paris accord debacle.

Generally, Malcolm was diminished at every opportunity. It often became absurd with Burney concerned with sinking islands and young people swimming in August.

One cannot do justice to every cliché of alarmism which was trotted out by the alarmists on the panel. Every one of these clichés can be dealt with and repudiated with just minimal recourse to facts and figures. The myths of alarmism are listed here.

The take away point from the Q & A is the abysmal ignorance of the general public and the political class which allows people like Cox getting away with outrageous falsehoods. Cox was not selected for nothing to appear on this program. He is photogenic and fluent and charismatic. Frankly it didn’t matter what he said because he said it with such panache and charm he could have been reading the directions to change a light bulb. He is after all an ex pop star. (see below -Ed)

That is why it is so important that Malcolm Roberts is now in parliament. For years he has been bashing his head against the brick world of money, vanity and ideology which is alarmism. Now he has a cache of authority by his election. What he should do now is arrange for some of the world’s leading climate scientists who can match the likes of professor Cox to come to Australia and give talks at parliament under his auspices. People like Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Ryan Maue and Ross McKitrick and in Australia Stewart Franks, Peter Ridd and Mike Asten. Prominent sceptics need to be supported and given exposure. If Malcolm can achieve that he truly will be a success.

All in all Malcolm did well. He said some great things none better than what he said about education and the difference between teaching kids what to think rather than how to think. The Q & A set up was a failure and it will be interesting to see if he is invited back to the ABC.
- - - - - - -

Editor's Addendum

Brian Cox was in two bands - d-ream and Dare.

Perhaps his support for the falsified Man made global warming hypothesis can be explained by the Dare Song - We don't need a reason.