Thankfully the move has been fairly painless – a nifty easy-to-use import system has allowed me to bring across all my Livejournal articles without any fuss or bother. Catch all my latest articles on johnosullivan.wordpress.com.
Thankfully the move has been fairly painless – a nifty easy-to-use import system has allowed me to bring across all my Livejournal articles without any fuss or bother. Catch all my latest articles on johnosullivan.wordpress.com.
Paradox One: Thousands of years of proxy data proving increases in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are proven to follow, not cause, all prior increases in global temperatures;
Paradox Two: A colder atmosphere heated by a warmer surface has been turned full circle and modeled by climatologists as the causal agent such that cool air somehow can heat a warmer surface even more;
Paradox Three: Solar heating that impacts half of the planet at any time is now modelled as an isotropic source with one-quarter of the intensity over the entire planet.
These three conditions should be among the most simple things to understand in physics and reality, argues Postma, yet they have simultaneously been made the most difficult to comprehend by the inventive post-normal reasoning of Climatism.
Joe Postma, a scientist with the Canadian Space Agency and Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) asks, “So when did logic, true philosophical intuitive logic, become divorced from science? The truth is that these paradoxes of Climatism indicate a profoundly more disturbing problem at the heart of the human condition. We have divorced logic from science: why?”
Simulacra and Tautology: the Tricksters’ Tools
Postma, author of hot papers in this field including Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect and The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect works alongside dozens of his scientific colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) to cogently identify that an entire branch of science (pseudoscience at the core, but there is some good work around the periphery) has been based on fundamental logical paradoxes. They say Climatism’s scientific contradictions are lamentable, disturbing, incredibly sad and a depressing state of affairs.
Postma notes, “Climatism, the pseudoscience that passes for climate science, is based on a negatively-directed application of the ideas researched by the philosopher Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation, or in other words, hyper-reality.”
In the hyper-reality of Climatism, observes Postma, all research performed in the field of Climatism is directed towards postulating anthropogenic influences; therefore, any results provided by Climatism indicate anthropogenic influences, and so the legitimate, logical definition of "climate science/climate change" becomes divorced from reality, and now exists only within the framework of anthropogenesis.
According to such scientists as Postma, in the hyper-reality of Climatism, "climate change" directly translates to "human caused”; that is entirely illogical at the core, but within the hyperreality framework of Climatism, survives as its own tautologous definition. Climatism has long enjoyed the backing of a complicit media and bankrolled by incredibly well funded environmental organizations, and a (less so now, fortunately) poorly educated public.
Postma observes, “The underlying goal here, of Climatism, is to divorce the reality of real climate change from the hyper-real simulacra of climate change - to have a simulacra of climate change which actually has nothing at all to do with climate change.”
It appears Postma has a point. In Plato's discourses, he discussed the "ideal forms" of which our perceptions of reality were an approximation. In hyper-reality our approximations are divorced from the ideal forms altogether, with the problem being that our perceptions and framework (science) of reality become based on other approximations several times removed, with no ability to recover what the true form actually was in the first place.
“This is the goal of Climatism. If we enter another ice age or another warming period, it will be anthropogenic by definition, with no sense or ability to consider any true natural causes, in the hyper reality of "climate change,”” laments the Canadian scientist.
No Denial of Climate Change: Skewering the Straw man
Consider the example of the language climatist's use when attempting to shut out legitimate scientific analysis of their hyper-reality of Climatism: they pretend to ridicule their opponents by saying that they "deny climate change" or "deny global warming".
Whereas the on the other hand, the real scientists finding the problems in the theory say that they question "anthropogenic climate change" or "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change". You will never find a real scientist, anywhere, saying that they "deny climate change". The distinctions of language here is very important. In the former case, the language is completely meaningless, and completely fraudulent, but it is pretended to have meaning due to the context of the hyper-reality of Climatism. Anyone who uses such language as the climatist’s example is a complete scientific fraud engaging in the pseudoscience of the hyper-reality of Climatism, which is pretended to be passed off as climate change.
“Anyone who cannot understand this central philosophical and logical problem is completely incompetent and should not be pretending to engage in the true form of science, but that doesn't matter in the hyper-reality of "climate change,”” adds Postma.
Exploitation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
There is another aspect of philosophy which has been negatively exploited by Climatism, and that is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: "In any system of arithmetic 'A', there will exist a statement 'x' which is neither provable or unprovable by 'A'." This is a profound statement, says Postma and dozens of his colleagues at Principia Scientific International urge us all to ponder it. The statement 'x' of Gödel's theorem IS the Greenhouse Effect, within the system of physics and thermodynamics of modern science.
“I am sure there are other possibilities of course,“ says Postma, “but this is one and as the Slayers have pointed out, the greenhouse gas effect is both definable yet not definable. It is both seemingly logical but also perfectly self-contradictory, as Alan Siddons, for example, has brilliantly highlighted.”
All of Climatism is based on the exploitation of the creation of that perfect (perfect if you seek to lie) statement 'x'. This is the core of where the myriad of paradoxes of Climatism are generated - it is the engine of paradox at the core of Climatism - the engine of anti-logic, anti-science, anti-humanity at the core of Climatism, a product of post-normalism. Postma and his colleagues are showing us a way out of this mess, and it is via the application of another great philosopher's discoveries: the "dialectical method".
“Basically, this is the true form, the Platonic Form, of science. Postulate a thesis, attack it with an antithesis, discover the synthesis which then presents the new thesis, and repeat the process until the thesis approximates reality to a sufficient degree - we have not yet discovered when or where this process ends, of course,“ cautions the Canadian.
Climatism Opposes Dialectical Reasoning and Debate
Of course, the Principia Scientific International man makes a telling point: this dialectic is the LAST thing Climatism allows into its hyper-reality. “That tells you what threat it presents: insider peer-review, no debates, hostile response to criticism, ignoring criticism, etc.,” bemoans Postma. The one thing that improves true science is the biggest thing the hyperreality of Climatism rejects. So don't we have a beautiful consistency here? Of course, it requires intelligence to appreciate and intelligence is ALSO a thing the hyper-reality of Climatism has rejected in its practitioners. Irked by such post-normalism Postma laments, “It is a category error to consider yourself intelligent if your skill merely equates to being the most excellent of frauds and liars.”
What PSI scientists have done so magnificently is expose the Climatism Thesis. More and more analysts now understand that this doomsaying thesis requires us to accept the following gross absurdities: (a.) that the Earth is flat; (b.) the Sunshine is isotropic and cold. From thence we readily accept that the surface temperature is warmer than the average atmospheric temperature. But this is then topped with the most perfect statement of incompleteness 'x' (i.e. the GHE, which is defined yet not definable) which is used to explain why the surface temperature is warmer than the average atmospheric temperature.
This is where Climatism stops, and proceeds only within this framework, and creates its hyper reality. And what is The Antithesis to this flat earth fatuousness? Why, the work of the Slayers as presented in "Slaying the Sky Dragon,” plus Postma’s papers and those other studies published by Principia Scientific International. Postma explains:
“Our Synthesis thus becomes a spherical and rotating model Earth described by a truly physical heat flow equation which IS provable in the framework of modern physics - sunshine is hot and its actually-measured value, capable of melting ice and evaporating water and generating high temperatures while providing sufficient energy to drive a climate system.”
To Postma and his PSI colleagues, the next iteration to thesis from this synthesis will be nothing like the paradigmatic shift seen in this past iteration: “This first iteration basically started with an insane and arbitrary pretext, sort of like starting a transcendental equation at an arbitrary solution but which quickly converges,” adds Postma.
Even Grade Schoolers Know Sunshine Isn’t Cold & Earth Not Flat
Climatism never got past its insane and arbitrary initial solution. It thus created an entire hyper reality based on an insane initial solution with simplistic physics that simply doesn’t work: Earth is not flat, it is round and rotating; the Sunshine is not cold, it is hot. What is so difficult here to understand? Cold sunshine cannot melt ice - yet we live in a world dominated by liquid and vaporous H20 and we know that raw sunshine has the power to create it.
This is elementary, elementary even to seven-year-old school children. But the Climatists are either not aware of it, or are fraudulently aware of it. They exist in an insane hyper reality performing "thought" under the pretext that the Earth is flat, there is no day and night and sunshine is cold. It is for those reasons, they say, there must be a greenhouse gas effect.
Climate blogger Anthony Watts perplexes his readers with a spiteful outburst against fellow skeptics of man-made global warming. The host of the world's most read science blog has made it clear he won't tolerate any dissent against his beloved greenhouse gas theory, the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming alarm.
Indeed, the front man of WUWT is in danger of tarnishing his otherwise stellar reputation in the global warming skeptic community with another science-free pop at fellow skeptics of the doomsaying cult, the 'Slayers.' Unlike Watts who insists carbon dioxide must cause "some" atmospheric warming, the Slayers disagree and despite lofty detractors have seen their science in the ascendancy since the launch of their best seller in late 2010.
Watts has never baulked at privately bad mouthing the Slayers' groundbreaking book,'Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory' that he admits he hasn't read. But in the last year Watts has increasingly gone public to let it be known that he refuses to countenance any debate on his website about the validity of the greenhouse gas theory, which he unquestioningly accepts.
Here is his latest vituperative blast as published on WUWT (March 14, 2012):
“I have been badgered repeatedly to carry “Slayer” articles on WUWT, and with the exception of one cartoon by Josh, I have refused to do so since I view the work (and its derivatives) as pointless and fatally flawed. In his latest essay, Sir Roy has not only slayed the slayers and slayettes, but has sliced and diced and made julienne fries in two easy steps. – Anthony”
Anthony has repeatedly stated that he does not grasp all of the science involved in this debate and depends on his bloggers and other scientists to inform him. He is rather like Spencer, who continues his rant as follows:
“...even some of us technical types end up feeling ill-equipped to argue outside our areas of expertise.”
Such is how the “blind lead the blind.” A perfect example of Anthony’s inabilities in this complex science is evinced from his immediate endorsement of Svensmark’s CERN cloud study (WUW: Aug 24, 2011). The CERN experiment suggested cosmic rays contributed to the nucleolization of 3 micron SOx molecules to the 50 micron particles necessary for cloud formation. The resulting clouds and rainfall remove these SOx molecules ending the process. Without identifying the source and rate of SOx production that supplies this 3 micron feedstock, this finding is completely useless.
It is either ironic or hypocrisy for those who advocate transparency and open debate to then restrict debate that they admit not understanding. As further proof Anthony closed any comments on his Slayer rant with a link to Roy Spencer’s “Two Step” rant.
No one has the right to tell others how to think. But it is somewhat galling to be publicly attacked by someone who styles himself as an advocate of open scientific debate yet who hypocritically refuses to permit any debate when it irks his own sensibilities. Perhaps the more enlightened readers on WUWT could advise their host that he is unlikely to further enhance his reputation by stooping to these attacks. As one respected environmental journalist (name withheld) commented:
“All opinions about so-called global warming deserve a fair and open hearing. Unfortunately, Anthony Watts, who I admire, will not post any articles on his Web site contesting the reality of the GHE or the alleged warming effects of CO2. It’s a shame. My guess is that he is afraid he’ll be labeled a crank by not only the warmists, but also the lukewarmists, many of whom are his close associates. In that regard, he is not much different from many government-funded consensus scientists who are afraid, for professional and personal reasons, to deviate from the pack AGW mentality.”
Perhaps some are right and Watts and the scientists he supports are afraid of debating. Perhaps they are fully aware that their case is weak and a wider audience will see this if any public debate is held. So it yet remains to be seen whether Watts has the strength of character to redeem himself and be open and honest enough to give all skeptics a fair hearing on the world's most popular science blog.
Arizona Sheriff and team of investigators reveal further damning evidence that Barack Obama holds his position as U.S. President unlawfully. Mainstream media conspiracy buries the story while it makes headlines overseas.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five-time elected Sheriff, and former federal narcotics agent who served in several foreign countries hit the front pages in Europe with evidence that may fatally wound the political career of the current incumbent of America's highest public office. The revelations are supplemental to an immutable reason to oust Obama by enforcing an arcane U.S. federal court decision.
Arpaio, formerly of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), reveals that his team of six investigators in Arizona has obtained proof that both the "Long Form Birth Certificate" presented by President Obama on April 27, 2011 plus his Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, are both forgeries.
However, the most likely "killer evidence" against the president comes not from Arpaio but from a 19th Century U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes the issue of the alleged forgeries almost superfluous. But that clear cut federal court decision is being systematically "disappeared" from mainstream archives. Critics ask why would this be if the Obama conspiracy theories were just that - theories without substance.
Legal analysts hold that this particular federal ruling confirms that Obama is not eligible for the highest public office because, even if he was born in Honolulu as he claims, he cannot have the status of "natural born citizen." This legal hurdle is not widely understood because "natural born citizen" is defined under law as someone with both parents born in the United States. Obama's father is from Kenya. As we shall see below this intriguing and highly relevant court case is strangely missing from mainstream "birther conspiracy" accounts.
Under Law Obama Not 'Natural Born Citizen'
Sheriff Arpaio refused to throw accusations at the president directly, merely stating his offices had a "person of interest" in the documents forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.
Notwithstanding the Sheriff's findings, constitutional analysts will regard the applicability of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution as most relevant. It states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
Obama is proven not to be a "natural born citizen" because of his father's Kenyan origin. In fact Obama more likely could claim to be British (Kenya being a U.K colony at the time of Barack's birth).
Under law there is only one test of what constitutes a 'natural born citizen' and it is enshrined in a crucial judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) of 1875. The 'Minor-v-Happersett' case clearly defines Natural Born Citizen as someone who can show that both of their parents were born in the United States, which obviously excludes Obama on his father's side.
Sinisterly, it may be no coincidence that even before his election in 2008 Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution on this issue. He and his supporters tried to remove the current requirement that stipulates a presidential candidate must have had both parents born in the U.S. Obama and his accomplices may thus be proven to have knowingly subverted the law. Arpaio's new evidence serves to add further salt to the wound.
Minor V. Happersett has been cited and held true in dozens of cases over the last 138 years. However, despite it's importance, this landmark judgment is strangely being expunged from Internet archives by supporters of Obama. Critics say this apparent fascist revisionism of American legal history seems to have begun in earnest after Obama's rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention when he first was hotly tipped for the presidency.
Obama's birth certificate is not the gravamen of this crucial issue but does substantiate allegations of a party political conspiracy. Therefore those who cite the “birther” controversy may have been sidetracked by the Hawaii red herring. It has long been known by legal analysts that in Hawaii any person could have registered the birth of a child late with only the signature of a witness. Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form. This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare).
Thus Hawaii has the dubious reputation of being the only state in the U.S. where a baby receiving state documents late could be declared a Citizen of the United States. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to resort to forging birth documents. But in the final legal analysis it is not where Barack was born but where his parents were born, in particular, his father.
CNN, Wikipedia & Others in Shocking Media Bias
The very fact that Obama's father was born outside of the United States means that under the law he can never lawfully hold the Office of President. But mainstream outlets won't reveal this fact when addressing the "conspiracy theories" on this.
We see that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, forbids inclusion of the Minor-v-Happersett ruling in it's entry about the Obama "conspiracy theory." Yet Wikipedia does have a separate entry for the case here (but no mention Obama).
Even a supposedly respectable source for legal research, Justia.com, the prime free legal internet research site for decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, has gone out on a limb to scrub Minor V. Happersett from it's server. This is despite almost every other Supreme Court case in American history being on their search engine.
No surprise then to learn that Justia.com is owned by wealthy Obama supporter Tim Stanley - so follow the money. The controversy is now dubbed "JustiaGate." Dianna Cotter who writes for Examiner.com, American Thinker, Accuracy in Media, and Family Security Matters writes more on these worrying developments here.
Breitbart Death Link to Obama?
As others have advised me, there may be more “coincidences” to add to this story. Leading conservative media gadlfy, Andrew Breitbart suffered his untimely death only hours after speaking with Sheriff Arpaio. Breitbart was set to release damning video footage he claimed would sink Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Sheriff Joe Arpaio told reporters, “I spoke with Andrew Breitbart shortly before he died. He told me he had information on tape – some good information. But right after he talks to me he’s dead.”
Research based on over 100 independent expert studies points to a cooling Earth climate at least until 2030. Author, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity points to failures by climatologists to account for solar variation in their projections.
The study ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ comprises a rigorous analysis of leading peer-reviewed papers. It is a sharp retort to unfounded global warming alarm propagated by government-sponsored climatologists and discredits claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that had speculated alarmist and unfounded temperature rises this century.
Indeed, Dr. Landscheidt’s study points to statements by the editors of the journal Science (2002) admitting an increasing in the number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change. The German solar specialist advises:
"The continuing debate about man-made global warming has reached a crucial stage. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), no longer publishes well defined best estimate projections of global temperature rise to the year 2100 caused by increases in greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere, but publicizes storylines to speculate about warming as high as 5.8 Degrees C till 2100.”
Strong Link Between Solar Variation and Earth's Climate Changes
The study further asserts, “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change.”
The evidence collated from the 100+ specialist papers shows that the IPCC incorrectly adjudged that the solar factor is negligible and is at fault for omitting to take into account that the Sun's eruptional activity (energetic flares, coronal mass ejections, eruptive prominences), heavily affecting the solar wind, as well as softer solar wind contributions by coronal holes have a much stronger effect than total irradiance.
In fact, “The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901, “ notes Dr. Landscheidt.
While the latest 11-year sunspot cycle 23 has shown noticeably weaker activity and appears to be a first indication of a cooling trend. The outcome of this change in solar activity may fatally impact the IPCC's hypothesis of man-made global warming.As Dr. Kleespies observed, “Dr. Landscheidt shows that temperature always lags those minima and maxima a few years. The next Gleissberg minimum will be 2030, thus meaning it will possibly get REALLY cold from then on.“
This expert study is a compelling analysis of the most up-to-date peer-reviewed solar science and serves as a reminder to climatologists to earnestly reassess the undeniable truth that our sun is the key driver of Earth’s climate, not human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Reference: Dr. Landscheidt, T., ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’ (March 2012), www.schulphysik.de (accessed online: March 09, 2012)
The results show that 70% of respondents living up to 5km away report being negatively affected by wind turbine noise, with more than 50% of them "very or moderately negatively affected".
The study comes from the Department of Geography, Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide, Australia. It formed part of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang, a graduate student.
The survey was made in the vicinity of the Waterloo wind farm, South Australia, which is composed of 37 Vestas V90 3 MW turbines stretching over 18 km (1). These mega turbines are reported to be emitting more low frequency noise (LFN) than smaller models, and this causes more people to be affected, and over greater distances, by the usual symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS): insomnia, headaches, nausea, stress, poor ability to concentrate, irritability, etc, leading to poorer health and a reduced immunity to illness.
The Danish government recognised recently that LFN is an aggravating component in the noise that affects wind farm neighbours. This prompted their issuing regulations that limit low-frequency noise levels inside homes to 20 dB(A). Unfortunately, as denounced by Professor Henrik Moller, they manipulated the calculation parameters so as to allow LFN inside homes to actually reach 30 dB(A) in 30% of cases. “Hardly anyone would accept 30 dB(A) in their homes at night”, wrote the Professor last month (2).
A summary of the Australian survey has been published (3), but the full Masters dissertation has not been made available to the public. In the interest of public health, the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North-American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW), have asked the University of Adelaide to release this important document.
A neighbour of the Waterloo wind farm, Mr Andreas Marciniak, wrote to a local newspaper last week: "Do you think it's funny that at my age I had to move to Adelaide into my Mother’s shed and my brother had to move to Hamilton into a caravan with no water or electricity?" (4) Both Mr Marciniak and his brother have been advised by their treating doctors, including a cardiologist, to leave their homes and not return when the wind turbines are turning.
How many people will be forced to abandon their homes before governments pay attention, wonder the thousands of windfarm victims represented by EPAW and NAPAW. "It'll take time to gather enough money for a big lawsuit", says Sherri Lange, of NAPAW, "but time is on our side: victim numbers are increasing steadily."
(4) - Letter sent to the Editor of the Burra Broadcaster by Mr. Andreas Marciniak, windfarm victim.
Climate activists apply a two-pronged damage limitation strategy after the FBI launches a probe of self-confessed global warming fraud conspirator, Dr. Peter Gleick.
Desperate mainstream media apologists of Professor Gleick’s misdeeds are hard at work papering over the cracks. Media enablers are portraying Gleick as a planet-saving hero while simultaneously mischaracterizing the real victims of the crime (the Heartland Institute) as a ‘well-funded climate denial machine.’ But all is not what it seems.
Anthony Cox succinctly exposes the immorality of the climate alarmist cult in his latest article, ‘Noble Cause Corruption: Global Warming?’ Cox eruditely dissects an attempt by one such apologist, Stephan Lewandowsky.
Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow and Winthrop Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia, seeks to justify the fraudulent procurement of confidential material from the Heartland Institute by Peter Gleick. But we find that Lewandowsky has form in whitewashing climate criminality in the UK’s pro-green The Guardian.
This moral malaise among senior scientists and science-focused media and education is concomitant with an insidious creep of post-normalism into our universities over a 50-year period. No less a figure than President Dwight D. Eisenhower forewarned of this impending cultural threat in 1961. Eisenhower foresaw the rise of corruption in the sciences (particularly the government-funded variant) that enables those in positions of power and prestige to maintain a stranglehold on funding and policy.
Cox conveys to readers that Lewandowsky spins a delusional mischaracterization of anyone who disagrees with the post-normal global warming narrative of ‘saving the planet.’ Lewandowsky sets the scene by regaling the ‘Mother Earth-saving’ achievements of Gleick:
“Dr. Gleick is an internationally recognized water expert and was named a MacArthur Fellow in October 2003 for his work. In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a “visionary on the environment” by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 2006 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.”
Yet despite such credentials what Gleick did was lie, deceive, procure and publicly disseminate stolen private information; along with a fake document which he either created himself or knowingly used to injure those at the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank disagreeing with his viewpoint.
Cox puts into broader context how Gleick’s criminal mindset accords remarkably well with the corrupt methods of other ‘planet savers.’ We see a stark mismatch between the facts and the spin.
“We should not be surprised about this line of ‘reasoning’ from Lewandowsky. The pro-AGW side has repeatedly indicated it is prepared to exaggerate, lie [see comment 246], break the law, oppose the democratic structure itself to ‘save the planet’ and be misanthropic. Lewandowsky and other pro-AGW advocates have indicated a willingness to censor and suppress ‘denier’ viewpoints; they have been prepared to hide their doubt about the ‘science’ supporting AGW in private while promoting the false idea that this ‘science’ is settled. The Climate-gate emails clearly show this,” says Cox.
Nailing the Three Big Lies of Climate Alarm
The Big Lies perpetrated by the Lewandowsky-Gleick set are that (a) the planet is dangerously warming (b) humans are primarily responsible (c) Hotbed of ‘denier propaganda’, the Heartland Institute is lavishly funded by ‘Big Oil.’
But all three points are readily discredited by the facts:
Even NASA data confirms no warming since 1998 despite a considerable 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2;
Leading analysts, 50 linked to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) disagree that humans can noticeably effect climate;
Heartland Institute funding is microscopic compared to the huge sums doled out to the global warming industry (see Josh cartoon).
In Lewandowsky’s world those ‘well-funded’ and evil skeptics are akin to Nazis and his highly decorated ‘hero’ Peter Gleick performed a courageous raid on the planet’s ‘enemy.’
Alarmists will keep trying to make Heartland the story rather than Gleick. But Lewandowsky doesn’t tell his readers that Gleick pocketed $500,000 just for being a MacArthur Fellow – more a climate mercenary than a missionary some would say.
Lewandowsky, Gleick and the cabal of climate catastrophists are cavalier with the truth because they abide by the creed of post-normal science that Eisenhower warned us about.
What the free world is fast learning is that these post-normalists work hand in hand condoning and/or committing criminal acts to push through their political and social agenda by the vehicle of dishonest climate science.
What is also increasingly apparent is that the enablers of this worrying trend are ‘fifth columnists’ strategically placed in the upper echelons of select but sullied national science institutions and academies; a fact made increasingly apparent by certain high-profile protest resignations including one Nobel Prize winner.
As a reaction, freethinkers are busy creating an alternative - a science association extolling traditional methods.
It is the Gleicks and Lewandowskys who advance the post-normal ‘cause’ that Eisenhower warned us about; they are the real corrupters of freewill and free speech. And there is certainly nothing noble in their denial of truth.
John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst & co-founder and coordinator of Principia Scientific International
Split Court Decision for Michael Mann in Global Warming Legal Battle
Virginia Supreme Court renders a verdict that permits continued suppression of evidence in the Michael Mann ‘hockey stick’ graph controversy – but only just. One dissenting judge scuppers the climatologist’s hopes of yet another global warming whitewash and skeptics remain upbeat.
The latest decision (March 2, 2012) in the Cuccinelli vs. University of Virginia. (UVa) case determines that the university is not a “person” subject to a “Civil Investigative Demand” (CID) from the attorney general. This means UVa won’t have to hand over Michael Mann’s Climategate e-mails and documents to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (at least - not for now).
With Justice McClanahan dissenting on the “with prejudice” issue this is not the 'get out of jail free' card that Michael Mann hoped for.
Legal Precedents May Assist Attorney General’s Gambit
Legal analysts will read with interest dissenting McClanahan’s opinion that affirms Cuccinelli was correct on the point that UVa is not exempt from the Attorney General's authority to issue CIDs pursuant to Code § 8.01-216.10. As such Justice McClanahan believes the taxpayers’ champion, Cuccinelli, was authorized to issue CIDs to UVa. This offers Cuccinelli some wriggle room to mount a legal challenge on the basis that the 'with prejudice' component of the decision may be viewed as:
Excessively heavy-handed and thus contrary to the best interests of justice i.e. Cuccinelli should reasonably be permitted to amend and perfect his CID. Thus he might overcome the issue that his original submission "did not sufficiently state what the Attorney General suspected Dr. Mann did that was "false or fraudulent" in violation of Code § 8.01-216.3(A)"
Falling foul of recent “personhood” case law, particularly as to its applicability to organizations and corporations. Cuccinelli may find some joy here by applying Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010).
Many with legal training in the skeptic camp may deem the ruling to be politically motivated (see from page 5 for the “Person” analysis in the opinion).
Focus Shifts Inexorably to Canada Court Case
So while we may rue a battle victory to Mann the war goes on. If Cuccinelli fails to resurrect his case in Virginia this will mean supporters of transparency and accountability in climate science will turn their attention to events in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver).
It is there that Dr. Mann is fairing less well in his libel suit against Canada's ever-popular skeptic climatologist, Tim Ball. Dr. Ball’s legal team is correctly demanding the full disclosure of this very same hidden evidence. As Mann is the complainant - and B.C. jurisdiction provides Ball the right to motion for full disclosure - it is far trickier for Mann to hide his numbers here.
With great confidence that Ball’s jibe that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State” will be shown to be accurate, some of us have literally bet the farm that Mann will lose. Thus mishaps in Virginia won’t necessarily delay Mann’s ultimate downfall. So please donate to Tim Ball’s legal fund today.
John O’Sullivan is Legal Counsel and Co-founder and Coordinator of Principia Scientific International
Two irate top climatologists launch into a flurry of name-calling and innuendo as their beloved greenhouse gas theory collapses threatening to take their careers with it.
Dr. Roy Spencer this week followed the lead of Dr. Richard Lindzen in spitting insults after fellow skeptic scientists debunked the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Lindzen confined his insults to private emails. But Spencer openly blogged his personal attack after reading how cutting-edge scientific research by specialists in astrophysicists, space engineering and mathematics had exposed Spencer’s weak grasp of physics; something particularly identified by NASA’s former Apollo Mission engineer, Dr. Pierre R. Latour.
Highly credentialed scientists, among them Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthias Kleespies and other leading experts in their respective fields have been remorselessly debunking the GHE in a series of articles and peer-reviewed papers. The GHE is the cornerstone of the man-made global warming hysteria.
Discussions Terminated After Tempers Fray
With unseemly venom Spencer and Lindzen have scorned further dialog from several fellow man-made global warming skeptics for refusing to toe the line over the increasingly discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE).
Like many climatologists, Spencer and Lindzen have built successful careers as skeptics of the man-made global warming narrative, but all the while they've denounced anyone who has pinpointed errors woven into the GHE. Some quarters refer to such skeptics as 'lukewarmers.'
But in recent months a paradigm shift has been underway and a whole slew of hard core GHE contrarians are no longer prepared to stay silent - and can you blame them? Satellite measurements prove that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have gone up over 30 percent in recent decades while global temperatures have fallen since 2003; that's real world data starkly contradicting the predicted warming of the GHE ( Lindzen foreseeing a 1 degree Celsius rise).
Like all other religionists who subscribe to the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ these two giants of climate skepticism are profoundly at fault for believing the atmosphere ‘keeps our planet warmer than it would otherwise be.’
While an increasing number of fellow scientists are abandoning belief in the GHE these two American skeptic academics stand out for stubbornly sustaining the GHE falsehood - and because they believe in the crazy ‘cold’ space fallacy.
Space has no Temperature: So Says Space Scientists
For months earnest behind-the-scenes discussions have been to no avail. Space scientists and other experts have despaired as they have tried and failed to show Spencer and Lindzen the errors of their way. Astrophysicist Joe Postma, who works for the Canadian and Indian space agencies, sums it up:
“Everyone who has studied thermodynamics knows space doesn’t have a temperature. That’s the first trick question you get on the first day of the first semester of introductory thermodynamics. That 2.7K is the "temperature" of the CMB radiation found in space. It is not the temperature OF space! See the logical difference? Of course academia can’t handle that level of logic anymore; 2.7K would be the induced temperature of a physical body in space with no other heat sources, but it is not the temperature of the empty space itself.”
Spencer and Lindzen wrongly assumed that the so-called cosmic 'microwave' – the background radiation (or CMBR, generated by the ‘Big Bang’) is what the rest of vacuum space registers as temperature (the CMBR is quoted at around 2.7K).
But even that pro-green online encyclopedia, Wikipedia knows there is no ‘real’ temp in space – they refer to the “color temperature’ of the decoupled photons” which they say “has continued to diminish ever since [the 'Big Bang']; now down to 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K,”
‘Thermos Flask’ analogy More Compelling than ‘Blanket Effect’
Time and again independent scientists have demonstrated to leading climatologists in private emails that space has no temperature because it is an empty vacuum and as such acts as a perfect insulator (like a thermos flask). Thus it inhibits the escape of heat energy from Earth’s atmosphere; only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction.
Time and again the Spencers and Lindzens cling onto their falsities. Once this fundamental fact is understood they will appreciate Earth endures a ‘thermos flask-like effect’ influencing our planet to retain (not lose) heat.
People who say that ‘space is cold, because of the CMBR’ will often concede they have no training in thermodynamics.
“It is perfectly ambiguous and a red-herring/straw man, just like the way they argue with the greenhouse effect,” says Postma. Thankfully, the reverse of the alleged greenhouse gas effect is true – atmospheric gases act to keep out planet COOLER than it would otherwise be.
Categorically, space does not have a temperature, only matter has a temperature - only matter can make a sound and you can only hear that sound if there is matter in between you and the source of the sound.
Does anyone hear you if you clap in space? It’s basically the same question. There’s no matter in space – therefore no one hears the vibration of your two hands slapping together propagating outwards and making a sound.
Space scientists know radiation does not have a temperature. It can only induce a temperature when it encounters matter that is susceptible to the radiation it receives. Some humility now needs to be shown by climate scientists and they must admit that the GHE and the whole man-made global warming fraud was built on ignorance, stupidity and/or willful deception.What the Spencers and Lindzens of this world need to understand is that the radiation that is found in space might indicate a temperature, but radiation is NOT space.Radiation is energy, and indeed it can have what space scientists call a Black Body temperature spectrum (this is where the confusion would come in). But ponderable temperature is actually only created when that energy gets absorbed into an object/matter and the molecules/atoms start vibrating/bouncing around.
Despite his full public admission to be a co-conspirator in criminal activities against the Heartland Institute, a charity sympathetic to skeptics, Wikipedia is at pains to hide the fact Peter Gleick yesterday admitted to this felony published here at the Huffington Post .
In it’s latest entry (H/T: Paul Sheridan) added today (February 21, 2012) the Wikipedia entry for fraudster, Peter Gleick reads thus:
“On February 20, 2012, Gleick issued a statement in the Huffington Post explaining that he had received anonymous documents in the mail that seemed to contain details on the climate program strategy of The Heartland Institute, a pro-business think tank. He admitted to soliciting and receiving additional material from the Institute "under someone else's name," calling his actions "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics." Andrew Revkin wrote at the New York Times that "Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins ... " ”
How many other media outlets that claim to serve the public but are in fact controlled by our self-serving elite, will also engage in this despicable cover up?