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

Sunday, 22 January 2017

Islam in Australia: myths and common media positions. Part 5 The Melbourne Terrorist Event

Anthony Cox 
So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him…. (ISIS Edict 2014)

The death toll from the Melbourne terrorist attack by a recent convert to Islam is at 5 and likely to rise. Many others were injured.

I have written before about the inadequacy of responses to Islamic attacks by police and the reporting of these attacks by the media. The pattern has been repeated this time. The police allowed the Muslim to enter the CBD of Melbourne, did not attempt to intercept the Muslim’s car and allowed him to perform wheelies while shouting Allahu Akbar before driving his car into pedestrians.


Police only shot the Muslim after he had run people down. This is almost identical to the hands-off approach police used during the Lindt café siege where the priority was not to inflame prejudice against Muslims (Operation Hammerhead).

The media reporting of the Melbourne terrorist attack has been similarly deficient and deceptive. The ABC and the other left wing media, Fairfax, Guardian etc, have not even mentioned that the terrorist was Muslim. All attention has been on his troubled, drug-addicted background. This is despite what a friend of the Muslim is reported as saying:
He was a great guy but ice destroyed him. Then he converted to Muslim and changed very quickly. For over a month he's been on edge,' he told Daily Mail Australia.'He stabbed his brother in the face and beat up his poor mother I knew this bloke really well... I'm not sticking up for him whatsoever and he deserves to be punished for what he's done, but that evil drug ice was the cause of this.
So, even when his friend notes he changed very quickly after converting, the media still maintains the lie that this was just a drug outburst. All the evidence points to the opposite. All the previous lone wolf attacks were similarly dismissed as the product of mental disease or some other personal defect; anything other than Islam.

In a recent essay, Michael Davis looks at this tendency in the media and by our leaders to avoid blaming Islam for these atrocities. Davis says about a previous lone wolf Muslim terrorist:
But Artan’s isn’t really such a hot take on radical Islam. In fact, it fits into an alarmingly common pattern. Commentators have noted that, despite invoking the Islamic State before his attack and following methods laid out in its magazine Dabiq, he appears to have no ties to any formal terrorist cell. That’s good! Right? It shows that Isis’s network isn’t as pervasive as we once thought, or as they’d like us to think. Small-scale, lone-wolf attackers like Artan prove that Isis & Co. don’t have the means to organise and coordinate attacks on the scale of 9/11 or Paris. And that’s probably true. But it shouldn’t come as a relief. On the contrary: it proves the threat facing our civilisation is far direr than we might’ve thought.
The point about lone wolves is that a lone wolf can be any Muslim, and can occur any time. Not all the lone wolf attacks have been by drug addicts. The Fort Hood massacre was by a doctor. The London bombing involved teachers and social workers. The Boston Marathon massacre by students. The San Bernardino attack by a married couple, the husband a Health Inspector. The Fort Lauderdale attack by an ex-soldier.
In all these instances some aspect of the terrorist’s character is emphasised by the media and politicians so that the dominant characteristic of the terrorist, that he or she is a Muslim, can be ignored.

There are 2 issues here. Why do the media and politician avoid the obvious; and why does Islam attract such people.

The reason why the media and politicians avoid the issue is a combination of cowardice and condescension towards the general population, the deplorables. But in effect, they are betraying not only the deplorables but also Western values and society, the best type of society in the world.

The reason why Islam attracts such people is shown by a Muslim. Shadi Hamid writes about Islamic Exceptionalism. Hamid says:
In both theory and practice, Islam has been, is and will continue to be resistant to secularization. In other words, Islam is different. It is fundamentally different than other major religions…..Islam becomes a distinct political project. Islamism only makes sense in opposition to something else - that is, secularism. For the first time Muslims, and Islamists in particular, feel the need to say, "We are different. We are affirming (or reaffirming) our Islamic identity." It becomes a very conscious political act.
Islam gives an identity, purpose and meaning to its adherents. It also makes them feel superior to their enemy: secular society and non-Muslims - tawaghit/infidels-. That is the real mentality at work here not drug addiction: losers and outcasts like the Melbourne Muslim join Islam to obtain affirmation and justification. As part of Islam they have no communal responsibility for either secular society or the non-Muslims living in it. Before Islam drug addicts did not perpetrate atrocities, that capacity was created by Islam which attracts both losers, malcontents and functioning people and converts them into haters of non-Muslims. Only Islam does that. The Melbourne Muslim and all the other lone wolfs demonstrated that psychology of hatred and their method of expressing this hatred was entirely consistent with the edict by ISIS.


This was a Muslim operation in method and motivation; and once again our media and political class has failed us.

Friday, 20 January 2017

18 answers from a (man-made warming) climate sceptic

Source
Richard Willmsen has written a piece:

18 questions for climate deniers
which starts:

  1. Do you accept the science of how babies are created?
  2. Do you accept the science of how ice is formed?
  3. Do you accept the science of how the earth goes in circles?
  4. Do you accept the science of where eggs come from?
  5. Do you accept the science of how water is heated?
And his trite questioning includes what he probably thinks is his stinger:
Do you accept the science of how greenhouses work?
And an even stranger one, considering the position he is coming from:
Do you accept the science of how flowers can grow?
Let's look at, first of all, his opening statement. 18 questions for Climate Deniers.

This is an inane question. I doubt that Richard (has he assumed the title of Tricky Dicky?) realises how stupid the title is. Does anyone deny climate?

Mark Twain has been attributed with the remark:
The climate is what you expect; the weather is what you get.
Or, as Professor Bob Carter once wrote: (Link)
Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
So,  Mr. Willmsen, how can anyone deny climate.

This, of course, goes back, before the ~20-year plateau in warming, when we realists were called "Global Warming Deniers." As the planet wasn't warming, we were, to use their perjorative term, 'Deniers."

However, as the warming ceased and we reached the ~20-year plateau of no warming, the pushers of the man-made global warming hoax, had to find a different term to describe us climate realists.

They foolishly settled on Climate Deniers.

So, before I answer some of Mr. Willmsen's questons, here are a few for him:

Mr. Richard Willmsen:
  1. Do you accept the science that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in atmospheric CO2?
  2. Do you accept the science that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is greening the planet?
  3. Do you accept the science that CO2 is just above starvation level for plants?
  4. Do you accept the science that the alarmists mistakingly call carbon dioxide - carbon?
  5. Do you accept that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified?
Is it you who are the denier, Mr. Willmsen?

You ask, do you accept how the greenhouses work?
Yes, we know that the primary greenhouse gas is simply H2O or water vapour.

As the American Chemical Society says: (link)
It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. 
And then you ask, against all your AGWhoax deluded questions:
Do you accept the science of how flowers can grow?
Well, yes. And as atmospheric carbon dioxide increase, the flowers, and all the biomass is increasing.

That creates more food for man and beast.

Are you sure, Mr. Willmsen, do YOU understand how our marvellous planet works?







Thursday, 19 January 2017

Latest Analysis of Official Temperatures Suggest Increase Since 1900 Only from “Natural Drivers” or Errors by Official Agencies


As we watch our TV news showing well below freezing temperatures in parts of Europe, even in Greece, and North America, we are also told by official meteorological agencies that 2016 was one of the warmest years on record. For example, in its report on 2016, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  claims that year was 
Australia's fourth-warmest year on record (the national observational dataset commences in 1910), with Australia’s area-averaged mean temperature for 2016 being 0.87 °C above the 1961–1990 average. 
It also claims that 
sea surface temperatures in the oceans around Australia were the warmest on record at 0.73 °C above average. 
The UK Met Office claims that provisional statistics published by it show 2016 as 13th warmest year in the UK (in the series going back to 1910) and that globally 2016 shares the warmest year with 2015. 

An important question is why there is such a focus by official agencies on the warmest year and whether that phenomenon helps understand the causes of the increase in temperatures published by official agencies.
As to the causes, the Australian BOM report acknowledges that “the Australian climate in 2016 was influenced by a combination of natural drivers and anthropogenic climate change”. But the UK Met mentions neither of these and the Aus BOM does not say anything about the relative contributions made by natural drivers and human activity. 

We can say however that, even if temperatures have increased by about 0.8ºC since around 1900 (which is the standard official message), this has done no harm. To the contrary, as illustrated in the attached report by the FAO, 2016 produced record agricultural output and since 1900 there has been a strong increase in food and other consumer production, with poverty rates falling. This suggests that, even if CO2 emissions did contribute to increased temperatures, there is no need to reduce the CO2

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate


For Prager U, Bjørn Lomborg explains the Paris climate agreement.

For an example, when the committee asked the head of the US Environmental agency:  
Exactly how much will this treaty reduce global temperatures? 
she could not, or would not say.

As Bjørn says:
The agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming. 
The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer--except politicians and environmentalists. Bjørn Lomborg explains.



Green Energy is a Charter for Crooks and Liars











Energy & Environmental
Newsletter - 16/1/17






AWED Friends:

The next edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is available.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:
Watch for an update of this national story in the Wall Street Journal!
Excellent short video: The “F” Word

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Dr. Happer Interview (on Climate Change, etc.)


John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen advocate




Copyright © 2017; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org)







Thursday, 12 January 2017

Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

The two truthful expression that the Alarmists hate are
  • There has been a twenty-year plateau in global warming; and
  • Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Twenty-Year Plateau in Global Warming

Roy Spencer, PhD,  points out on his UAH blog that

Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998 

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998 
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24 deg. C, down substantially from the November value of

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Energy & Environmental Newsletter -2/1/17

AWED Friends:

Welcome to 2017 and the year’s first edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter! It looks like it will be an exciting time, so fasten your seat belt...

There continues to be so many Trump-related happenings, that I’ve set up two new Newsletter sections: Trump & Energy, and Trump & Global Warming.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:
Obsolete Calculations of Cost of Carbon (an extremely important matter!)

Some of the more interesting Energy articles in this issue are:
Outstanding podcast on Energy and Climate Change
Excellent Study: Energy Deregulation
Cutting the Crap at DOE (See new Newsletter section on Trump & Energy)


I hope that you have an enjoyable and rewarding New Year...

John Droz, jr.


physicist & citizen advocate