Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Why does the US Consitution Require That The US President Must Be A Natural Born Citizen?

Posted by pwl on August 20, 2013

The Constitutional Meaning Of “Natural Born Citizen”
by Alan Lovejoy

The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen:

Article II, section 1, clause 5: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

If “natural born citizen” is a synonym for “citizen,” then there is no reason for adding the exception “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.

So what, then, is a “natural born citizen”? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Posted in Constitutional Law, Definition of Terms, History, History and Semantics of Citizenship, Law, Natural Born Citizen, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

The Paradox Of Self-Government

Posted by pwl on November 3, 2012

The Paradox Of Self-Government
By Alan Lovejoy

The state hypothesis argues that granting the state certain powers and authorities that no other entity has is the optimal solution to the problem of peaceful human interaction, cooperation and collaboration. Of course, there are many variations on the theme: Absolute monarchs, direct democracies, and modernly Constitutional republics, to name just the most common.

The principle argument for the state hypothesis is that human beings tend to mistreat each other, and so the state is necessary in order to protect the rights of all from the deprivations and abuses of the few.

But who will guard the guards themselves? Humans do not cease to have a tendency to mistreat others simply because they become employees (or leaders) of the state. That is the central paradox of establishing a state with a monopoly on the authority to operate as a government.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” ~ James Madison

The United States was founded by those who believed that a Constitutional republic might be the optimal form of a state, and that a Constitutional republic with limited powers might be a good solution to the problem of how to keep the state from becoming the very thing that it is intended to prevent from coming into existence, namely, a tyrannical violator of individual rights that no one has sufficient power to oppose:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” -Thomas Jefferson

But the state hypothesis has a fundamental flaw that categorically prevents it from being true: It’s based on multiple logical contradictions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Exercise For the Reader, Get some perspective people, History, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Ignorance to Knowledge, Making a REAL Positive Difference in the World, Ontology of Being, Paradigm Shift, Philosophy, Police State Insanity, Politics, Quotations, Rational Thinking, Science Ficition, Something to think about | 129 Comments »

Same-Sex Marriage IS A Christian Rite

Posted by pwl on May 15, 2012

When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite [What Was Still IS]
Written by Thos Payne, Colfax Record.

‎"A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men."

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus,2 two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome, Get some perspective people, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Ontology of Being, Philosophy, Politics, Proofs, Rational Thinking, Religion, WOW!!! | 11 Comments »

The case for the free market as the best protector of the environment

Posted by Strategesis on May 13, 2012

1) Risk management

There are two extremes of governmental structure: One is where there is but one universal government, and the other is where each sentient being is a sovereign government unto himself. In the former case, the universal government has full control over the environment on a world-wide basis. In the latter case, each individual makes his own policy decisions regarding whatever part of the planet he owns and rules over as the sovereign (if he does–he may not own any land.)

With one world government, there is a single point of failure. All risk resides with that one policy maker, who could decide on any policy. Worse, the monopoly policy maker can change its policy at any time. If it chooses a really bad policy, and applies it worldwide for a sufficiently long period of time, the results could be extremely disastrous for the human race, perhaps even for all life on Earth.

Consequently, entrusting the environment to the care of a universal government is equivalent to risking everything on the outcome of a single event: all of one’s trading capital on a single trade, or all of one’s gambling stake on a single roll of the dice. Traders and gamblers who do that repeatedly will eventually lose all their capital. You will not win every roll of the dice without limit.

Trusting to the policy decisions of a single government is to repeatedly roll the dice again and again, hoping that you win each time the government reevaluates its policy, for whatever reason.

2) Governmental Failure

It is commonly alleged that the failure to protect innocent bystanders from the collateral damage caused by big corporate/industrial polluters is a failure of the free market. But that assertion is contrary to fact:

We don’t live in a society where the free market has the primary authority or responsibility for protecting rights, property or otherwise. We live in a society where the primary authority and responsibility for that has been socialized and politicized. It is the state and its public (not private or free-market) system of law making, law enforcement and judicial services that our society gives the authority and responsibility to protect lives, health and property. So any failure to do that function effectively and/or satisfactorily cannot possibly be rightly placed anywhere else than on the state, and not on the free market. The state prohibits the existence of a free market in law and/or judicial services. It claims to be the monopoly provider of such services, and enforces that claim with overwhelming force.

The state makes the rules that define what activities will be allowed and which will be prohibited, makes the rules that determine whether, when and to what extent polluters will or will not be forced to pay for damages, and makes the rules that may or may not prohibit pollution-causing activities. The state enforces those rules, judges whether its rules have or have not been followed, and grants immunity from suit or prosecution as it sees fit. And environmentalists are positively furious with the results–but inexplicably blame the free market for this failure of the state.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Democratic Majority Vote Justifies Nothing

Posted by Strategesis on May 13, 2012

There is nothing magical about democracy that prevents it from violating rights, or from enslaving people–even those whom it grants the privilege of voting. The majority can vote to enslave whomever it pleases–without denying them the privilege of voting. Nor is there any limit to the degree of slavery that a democracy may impose.

That falsifies any assertion that slavery or serdom cease to exist once the slave or serf is allowed to vote. For the same reason that it would falsify an assertion that a majority vote to have someone killed wasn’t murder, simply because it was done by majority vote.

You own yourself. I can fully justify that assertion, but since most people accept it, and since that point isn’t the topic, I’ll just assume that the reader accepts the assertion, and proceed:

Ownership, by definition, defines as rightful whatever actions you decide to take with respect to what you own, with the sole exception of whatever interferes with the property rights of others–including their symmetrical and reciprocal ownership of themselves. That’s why the concepts of property and rights exist. Their purpose is to define and disambiguate whose will rightfully prevails, when there is a conflict of wills.

Consequently, your neighbor has no right to enslave you. He has no rightful title to you as his property. Whether it could ever be possible that one person could rightfully own another via transfer of title using some unspecified procedure is non-sequitur to this discussion. What is sequitur is whether or not your neighbor can rightfully acquire title to you as his property–his slave–simply by asserting it sua sponte.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | 2 Comments »

Why belief in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not currently justified by the standards of the scientific method

Posted by Strategesis on May 9, 2012

Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.

But “falsification” in science is not absolute. Instead, it is a matter of relative probabilities. Such “proof” by falsification of all alternatives is never final: All scientific laws, theories and hypotheses forever remain subject to falsification at any time–at least in principle, even if the odds of that ever happening are infinitesimally small.

All that is required to falsify an hypothesis, or to falsify the currently-accepted theory, is for an alternative hypothesis to be shown–by empirical evidence and quantitative analysis of the relative probabilities–to have a statistically-significant higher probability of being correct.

The CAGW hypothesis is that a) The Earth’s climate is warming, b) The warming is substantially a result of human emissions of CO2 and, c) The magnitude of the warming will be enough to have significant effects, and d) The net effects of the warming will be harmful, and e) The harm caused by the warming will be great enough to be worth the net costs of politically-coerced mitigation.

Null Hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis–which is also the null hypothesis (<= click the link for more info)–is that a) The warming is substantially due to natural causes for which humans are not substantially responsible, and/or b) The magnitude of any human-caused warming will not be not be great enough to have significant effects by itself (regardless of the effects of any warming not caused by man,) and/or c) The net effects of warming will not be harmfull–or if they are, then not by enough to be worth the cost of politically-coerced mitigation.

The null hypothesis has never been falsified. There have been no peer-reviewed studies published that quantitatively analyze both p(CAGW | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that CAGW hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data] and p(NullHypothesis | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that the Null Hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data], showing that the former (CAGW) has a statistically significant higher probability of being true than the latter (the null hypothesis–that warming is substantially natural.) Not one.

But the reverse is not true:
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Doomsday Claim Falsified, Green Religion, Hard Science Required, Politics | 14 Comments »

Pepper Spraying Peaceful Protesters IS Illegal Excessive Force So Says US Federal Appeals Court

Posted by pwl on November 21, 2011

US Federal Appeals Courts ten years ago declared pepper spraying peaceful protesters to be an illegal violation of their 4th amendment rights to be free from excessive force and that officers who cause such felony assault are liable for their actions and do not receive protection of sovereign immunity as their actions are excessive use of force which the 4th amendment prohibits.

Arrest and Charge John Pike

US FEDERAL APPEALS COURT Legal Precedence:
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Occupy, Politics | 1 Comment »

What is “Climate Change” anyhow?

Posted by pwl on May 10, 2011

We need to start asking those making the wild claims what they actually mean by “climate change”. What constitutes “climate change”? What defines “climate”? Is it just the range of limits of weather during some period of time? What the heck do they actually mean?

What are they actually freaked out about? 1c warmer?

If one looks at climate as being the range of weather over the last ~10,000 years then it’s clear that not much has changed at all and in fact it’s a wee bit cooler by something like -2c to -3c or there abouts. Damn the Romans had it warmer.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Definition of Terms, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, It's weather not climate, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Stupid It Burns!!!, Yikes! The sky is NOT falling!, Zombie Environmentalists | 5 Comments »

Revenge Justice makes you the same as your enemy and it perpetuates the problem thus it’s NOT Justice at all

Posted by pwl on May 10, 2011

In the 60 minutes interview Obama states his notion of “revenge justice”. What was more disturbing though is his self justifying attitude that anyone who disagrees with his style of “revenge eye for an eye justice” has to “have their heads examined”. Using the methods of Osama bin Laden doesn’t make you a better man Obama, it just makes you another terrorist and murderer. That’s the problem with the revenge notion of justice, you become what your enemy is.

Justice: “Theory of the morally appropriate way of resolving social differences. There is no one theory of justice.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking | Leave a Comment »

Science Believed Is No Different Than Any Religion

Posted by pwl on May 10, 2011

Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of the Royal Society

In a FREE society people are free to “believe” or “not believe” any claim of science, however BOTH are making a mistake!!!

Belief: taking as true (or false) that which you have no evidence for; basing your belief upon faith or trust (another form of faith).

Belief has NOTHING to do with science, belief is a process of the mind that takes things on faith rather than evidence that can be verified, preferably by each person or in a basic science class room.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adventure, Awesome beyond awesome, Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Doomsday Claim Falsified, Ethics in Science, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, Ontology of Being, Philosophy, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada | Leave a Comment »

If you want honest members of the government take away their legal right to lie to you

Posted by pwl on November 29, 2010

The legal right of the government to lie to the people has always bothered me as it smacks of a lack of integrity by the very people allegedly empowered to have the highest levels of integrity and honesty by the people. The members of the government, in whatever capacity or role they are filling, have a special trust to uphold and when they use deception why are they allowed to get away with it and yet a different standard is applied to the people when they lie? If a defendant in a court case lies at any point while being investigated it’s treated with such great importance that it’s as if the world came to an end… but when the cult members of the cult of government lie it’s for the benefit of the people and lifted up as somehow an honorable trick that was played to get at the truth when in fact it’s no different for it was a lie, a deception, a non-truth, falsified information, a fabrication designed to give false impressions. It’s ironic that some of the best liars are likely working within the government and get rewarded for it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in A New Kind of Science [NKS], Big Brother Planetary Control System, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Stephen Wolfram, Total Control Over Our Lives, Watching the Watchers | Leave a Comment »

Who will protect us from the likes of Officer Bubbles?

Posted by pwl on October 18, 2010

Office Bubbles is another excellent example of why not to talk to police as he PROVES the point so well over nothing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Police State Insanity, Politics, TerrorForming Earth, Video, Violent, Watching the Watchers | 2 Comments »

British Investigators Whitewash CRU Freedom Of Information Crimes with Loophole Letting Jones, et. al., Escape

Posted by pwl on January 25, 2010

Bishop Hill [1] and WUWT [2] are reporting on the success of British beurocrates in letting the Climategate CRU criminals, Phil Jones, et. al. at UEA, escape from penalties for their frauds and cover up under the FOI Laws:

“I was told that while there appeared to be a problem, I needed to be clear that there would be no prosecutions under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of the final outcome of the investigation. Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior. As anyone who has made a UK FoI request knows, it can take six months to exhaust the internal review process before the ICO even becomes involved. The ICO can then take another six months before starting his investigation.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Avoiding Quesitons, Bad Science Attitude, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Damn it!, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Police State Insanity, Politics, Stifling Dissent with Force, Yikes! The sky really is falling!, Zombie Environmentalists | Leave a Comment »

The New Defense of Responsible Journalism

Posted by pwl on January 9, 2010

A new ruling by the Supreme Court in Canada will allow journalists and bloggers greater protection from defamation lawsuits, establishing the new defence of responsible journalism.

If sued for defamation, journalists will be able to defend themselves by proving that they acted in the public interest and that they acted in a responsible way to gather the information. This rule will still apply even if particular facts are found to be false.” – Canadian Supreme Court Strengthens Press Freedom

This covers anyone blogging from Canada. I’m not sure [but am double checking] that this might cover Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit dot Org fame (assuming he’s resident in Canada). Certainly Stephen set’s the bar for indepth scientific blogging that goes beyond what any journalists that I’ve ever read have done (with the except of a few that have authored of books). One can aim towards Stephen McIntyre’s standards and not go wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Awesome, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking | 1 Comment »

BC Already Had Laws To Deal with Bad Drivers Being Irresponsible with Cell Phones

Posted by pwl on January 7, 2010

British Columbia already had laws to deal with irresponsible bad drivers with cell phones being reckless or dangerous.

“MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Part 3
Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention,
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.”

“… it’s already against the law to drive without due care and attention OR with undue care and attention.” – RS

The new anti cell phone and device laws were only made to make the life of law enforcement and ICBC biased prosecutors easier.

The problem with the new anti cell phone and device law is that it alters the burden of proof from the prosecutors having to prove that a person was distracted by the use of a phone or other device and assumes that the person is guilty. This is in direct violation of the Canadian Constitution which guarantees every person in Canada the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”).

This cell phone ban attempts to bypass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone.

It assumes that we are guilty without proving it and thus this law is nullified and void.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science, Big Brother Planetary Control System, British Columbia ICBC Police State, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Ignorance to Knowledge, Insanity beyond Insanity, Police State Insanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Scams, Science over Propaganada, The End is Nigh, Total Control Over Our Lives, Vehicles, Yikes! The sky really is falling! | 1 Comment »

Police State Deepens in British Columbia with Anti-Cell Phone Laws

Posted by pwl on January 4, 2010

The CULT of the Police State deepens in a disturbing way in British Columbia, Canada as of 1 Jan 2010.

It’s going to take a pretty creative excuse to get out of a ticket for violating B.C.’s new distracted driver law.

Effective Jan. 1, anyone caught holding a cell phone, PDA, portable music player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle is eligible for a $167 ticket. If the cop can prove you were actually using it, expect three demerit points, too.

That means simply fidgeting with a portable music player while stopped at a light is now against the law, according to RCMP Staff Sgt. Al Dengis, head of Central Okanagan Traffic Services.

“All the police are required to establish is that the individual was holding onto an electronic device,” he said.

Cops don’t have to prove that the device was in use or even on at the time of the offence.

“We simply have to show that you were driving the vehicle and holding the device,” Dengis explained.

Just holding a cell phone while behind the wheel is now against the law

This anti-cell phone law is unconstitutional, plain and simple for it assumes that one had diminished capacity when one is using a cell phone or other device in the car while driving. I’d like them to prove that I had diminished capacity even once while using a cell phone at any time for the past two decades.

Sure if a person is in an accident and it can be shown that a cell phone or a distraction was occurring and that that caused the accident that is one thing and the proper burden of proof of a contributing factor.

Failing an actual problem, such as an accident, it is well neigh impossible for them to prove that a driver has “diminished capacity” just because they were using a cell phone. It’s not like the case of alcohol.

However, to assume we are all guilty of diminished capacity just for holding a device or using a cell phone while driving is insanity and fails the burden of proof of guilt [that is required for the government to prove].

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1984, Bad Ideas, Bad Science, Big Brother Planetary Control System, British Columbia ICBC Police State, Canadians, Damn it!, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Insanity beyond Insanity, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Police State Insanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Science over Propaganada, The Sky Is Falling, Total Control Over Our Lives, Watching the Watchers, Yikes! The sky really is falling! | 27 Comments »

Christopher Moncton and Al Gore debate at last!

Posted by pwl on December 30, 2009

[:)]

Seasons Greetings. Happy New Year – Drink and Drive Responsibly OR NOT AT ALL.

Posted in Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Philosophy, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Video, Wait for it! | 2 Comments »

Hard Core Science Falsifies AGW Hypothesis plus The Dangerous Politics of Global Warming Alarmists

Posted by pwl on December 19, 2009

This interview occurred in October just before the whistle-blower released the Climategate Files which confirm many of the long suspected crimes against science and humanity by Jones, Mann, et. al..

Christopher Monckton talks hard core science.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Ethics in Science, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Good science attitude, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Ignorance to Knowledge, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, TerrorForming Earth, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Video, Yikes! The sky is NOT falling! | Leave a Comment »

Who is behind this AGW/Copenhagen push for global government?

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

Lord Monckton sits down with Jacek Szkudlarek of corbettreport.com and RBN to discuss climate change, Copenhagen and the larger agenda behind this push for world government.

In this installment, Lord Monckton answers the question “Who is behind this push for global government?” and flatly rejects the scheme to set up an unaccountable, unelected global government as an answer to the phoney manmade climate change scare.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Police State Insanity, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video | Leave a Comment »

Key Climate ‘Scientists’ aka Scare Tacticians Should Face Criminal Prosecution

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

David Warren, of the Canwest News Service based in Ottawa, Canada has some eloquent and biting words today for the alleged scientists of the Climategate fame. This “op ed” piece is running in papers across Canada the last few days. An extract follows, for the full article use the link provided.

It would be interesting to see some attempt to estimate the total direct cost to the world’s taxpayers of all the scare-mongering since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring first started appearing in The New Yorker magazine in June 1962.

Each scare, in turn, is packaged and marketed with more skill than the previous; each enjoys its run in the world’s headlines, and the frenetic political attention we have been watching in Copenhagen in its most advanced form. Each in turn is gradually forgotten as more facts come to light, as the apocalyptic predictions fail, as the storyline bores through repetition. And then a new scare needs to be invented.

“Anthropogenic global warming” will go the way of its predecessors, having achieved what was meant for it, in its season: the extortion of huge amounts of money by the parasites clustered around all the existing environmentalist spigots, the sinking of new bungholes into the public accounts, the creation of new big-brotherly bureaucracies to feed new vested interests and untold riches and prestige for the “settled scientists” who work the system for patronage.

But then it will be replaced with a new environmental scare narrative.

The parties are already working on “acidification of the oceans”; there were loose ends from Rio ’92 on “biological diversity” and there will always be fresh water-supply issues to play with. The threat from asteroids was briefly considered, then dismissed: too hard to blame that on the free market. But the activists will come up with something, for their livelihoods depend upon it.

For this reason, I think we need, after thorough public inquiries, to bring criminal prosecutions against some of the major scientific players exposed by the recent release of e-mails and papers at the centre of the “global warming” scam. The more any percipient reader pours through those “hacked” documents, the clearer he will see the criminal intent behind the massaging of the numbers; for the masseurs in question stood to benefit directly and personally from getting “the right results.” This is, by its nature, an issue for the criminal courts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science Attitude, Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Eco-zombie Terrorists, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Green Religion, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, Video | Leave a Comment »

Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Exposed by Jesse Ventura

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climategate, Conspiracy Theory, Hard Science Required, Police State Insanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Terrorfying, Video, Yikes! The sky really is falling! | 5 Comments »

Copenhagen Wrap Up with Christopher Monckton

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Politics | Leave a Comment »

Ben Shalom Bernanke, the most powerful man in the world

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

Ben Shalom Bernanke (pronounced /bərˈnænki/ bər-NAN-kee; born December 13, 1953) is an American economist, and the current Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. Mr. Bernanke, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush in October 2005 and who had briefly served as chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, succeeded Alan Greenspan on February 1, 2006. He was nominated for a second term by President Barack Obama in 2009 as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Posted in Police State Insanity, Politics, Scams, Terrorfying, Video, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Wiseman Obama Arrives in Frozen Over Copenhagen Bearing A 100 Billion Dollar Seasons Greeting Gifts for the Growing and Very Hungry Baby Climate Change

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

World leaders set to sign watered-down eco-deal
December 18, 2009
Allan Woods

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, left, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy take part in a joint news conference in Copenhagen. (Dec. 17, 2009)

COPENHAGEN–World leaders are on track to sign a watered-down climate deal here that disregards scientific warnings on the dangers of rising global temperatures, leaving unresolved many key issues debated for the last two years.

Just hours out from a deadline for the United Nations climate-change talks, developed nations have kicked in cash and the developing world has lowered its expectations as 119 heads of state and government land in the Danish capital in an effort to conclude an agreement.

But the money that has been requested by the poorest from the wealthiest appears set to fall short, and the pledged emissions cuts are set to disappoint the most ambitious nations.

Indeed, the targeted reductions as they remained late Thursday night would bring about an increase in global temperatures of 3 degrees Celsius, according to leaked UN documents that emerged Friday in Copenhagen.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climategate, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Ethics in Science, Police State Insanity, Politics | Leave a Comment »

The Potentially Dangerous Millitant Revolutionary Cult of Ecological Sustainability aka Climate Justice

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

The following video shows the results of a deep programming and cult inculcation of a “radical ecological green” belief system. This deep devotional commitment is in part fostered during a long period of fasting and indoctrination with fellow cult members. It is very disturbing as it reveals a deeply commuted individual that would be willing to take just about any action in “the revolution”.

Ecological Sustainability is an absolute unequivocal non-negotiable necessity. … Long Live the Revolution!” – “Paul”, a member of the Cult of Ecological Sustainability aka “Climate Justice”

A very dangerous video for anyone who falls for it. At the end under the increasing music he utters “Long Live the Revolution!”.

The deep and disturbing power of belief in ecological sustainability at any cost forms the foundation of The Potently Dangerous Militant Cult of Ecological Sustainability.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Belief Stricken, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Disasters, Double Yikes!!, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Eco-zombie Terrorists, Eeek!, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Green Religion, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Insanity beyond Insanity, Invaders from Earth, Police State Insanity, Politics, Scams, Science over Propaganada, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Violent, Zombie Environmentalists | Leave a Comment »

It’s the End of the World as We Know It! Only One Earth Under The New World Order Based Upon False Science brought to you by Maurice Darth Strong

Posted by pwl on December 18, 2009

Before Al Gore there was and remains Darth Maurice Strong.


I’m convinced that prophets of Doom have got to be taken seriously. In other words doomsday is a possibility.” – Darth Maurice Strong, BBC Interview, 1972.

I found that people were turned on that our Earth was in danger, and that our own life depends on the Earth and having a hospitable environment, and so how to translate that into a political kind of energy that would move the governments to do the right things in Stockholm [and by extension Copenhagen], to take the right decisions.” – Darth Maurice Strong.

Today, Maurice Strong sits atop the global environmental movement headed by the United Nations and its interlocking NGO’s and tax-exempt foundations.

Strong is considered to be the person behind the globalization of the foundation-funded environmental movement, and was the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in 1972, in Stockholm, Sweden.

He co-authored the ‘Earth Charter’ with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1992. It was Gorbachev who stated in 1996 that the “threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Green Religion, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Police State Insanity, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science over Propaganada, TerrorForming Earth, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Video | 1 Comment »

Rather than Venting on the Imagined Dangers of CO2, an essential plant nutrient, How About Doing Something REAL About Global Poverty?

Posted by pwl on December 17, 2009

Posted in Making a REAL Positive Difference in the World, Politics | Leave a Comment »

On the Path to Global Governance Based Upon False AGW Science

Posted by pwl on December 17, 2009

Posted in Climategate, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Eeek!, Insanity beyond Insanity, Politics, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Fred Singer: Warming Airports not Global Warming, On Winning the Science Debate, Stopping the EPA, Safe Coal Fired Plants and Nuclear Reactors, Getting to the Bottom of Climategate Science Crimes, Return the Nobel Prize

Posted by pwl on December 17, 2009

Posted in Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Ethics in Science, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Humbled by Nature, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown | Leave a Comment »

The Climate Wars Have Begun

Posted by pwl on December 16, 2009

Given the passionate belief stricken masses of people dedicated to the proposition that man is responsible for so called global warming climate change it’s getting dangerous out there!

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Disasters, Double Yikes!!, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Politics, Proofs Needed, Religion, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Video, Violent, Yikes!, Zombie Environmentalists | Leave a Comment »

Politicians Discover the Power of Nightmares and Make Full Use of Them To Control You

Posted by pwl on December 15, 2009

In 2004 the BBC aired this series of three one hour long documentaries on how the political class has seized upon the Power of Nightmares to control the population through fear and intimidation.

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis’s narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.

[Alan] Curtis has a remarkable feel for the serendipity of such moments, and an obsessive skill in locating them. “That kind of footage shows just how dull I can be,” he admits, a little glumly. “The BBC has an archive of all these tapes where they have just dumped all the news items they have ever shown. One tape for every three months. So what you get is this odd collage, an accidental treasure trove. You sit in a darkened room, watch all these little news moments, and look for connections.”

I wonder how the Climate Scares(tm) fit into the theorized Power of Nightmares Control System that we see taking hold in every country around the world? For the Climate Scares of yelling fire and doom in An Inconvenient Truth sure seem to have worked their scary magic. Al Gore fits into this in so many scary ways.

Politics – The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), “Baby it’s Cold Outside“ – by Adam Curtis, BBC

The first part of the series explains the origin of Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, depicted as the founder of modern Islamist thought, visiting the U.S. to learn about the education system, but becoming disgusted with what he saw as a corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism. When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by westernisation under Gamal Abdel Nasser and becomes convinced that in order to save society it must be completely restructured along the lines of Islamic law while still using western technology. He also becomes convinced that this can only be accomplished through the use of an elite “vanguard” to lead a revolution against the established order. Qutb becomes a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and, after being tortured in one of Nasser’s jails, comes to believe that western-influenced leaders can justly be killed for the sake of removing their corruption. Qutb is executed in 1966, but he inspires the future mentor of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to start his own secret Islamist group. Inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, Zawahiri and his allies assassinate Egyptian president Anwar Al Sadat, in 1981, in hopes of starting their own revolution. The revolution does not materialise, and Zawahiri comes to believe that the majority of Muslims have been corrupted by their western-inspired leaders and thus may be legitimate targets of violence if they do not join him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Conspiracy Theory, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Film, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, Philosophy, Police State Insanity, Politics, Rational Thinking, TerrorForming Earth, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Violent, Yikes!, Zombies | Leave a Comment »

The Power of Belief and Trust and Mass Propaganda are the Greatest Challenge In Continuing the Scientific Enlightenment

Posted by pwl on December 13, 2009

“So there is no need to invoke a complicated explanation for global warming involving disputed data on sunspots, cosmic rays and clouds, as some sceptics continue to do. The answer lies not in elaborate suppositions, but in the science and the data we can trust.” – Sun sets on sceptics’ case against climate change, Steve Connor,

The question is what is the science? How do you separate the wheat from the chaff? What happens when the data can’t be trusted due to the games that the alleged scientists involved played with it?

The climate debate seems to be less and less about the science than it does to be about people’s internal mental representation of their “beliefs” about the science that they “trust”.

Christopher Monckton proves to be an amazing interviewer.

“I’m most grateful to you for having giving me so much of your time. I do beg you not to believe either me or anyone else on this but do exactly what you just said and check for yourself and when you do I think you’ll find you’re addressing a non-problem. Thank you very much.” – Christopher Monckton

Cryosphere Today, University of Illinois

In the ideals of science “belief” and “trust” have no place as anyone would be able to “replicate” the science claims of any hypothesis on their own at any time.

For some hard sciences this is possible, for example with Newton’s gravity hypothesis just about anyone can do the experiments to confirm or refute the claims. Of course to test Einstein’s claims takes a bit more work and a lot more understanding as to grasp Relativity takes deeper comprehension.

What I wonder about is how can someone grasp what is going on in the global warming climate change debates without bring trust and belief into it? Is it even possible?

Many people I talk to find it difficult to accept that the raw temperature data from the scientists that collect it could be untrustworthy due to sloppy science or due to deliberate manipulation. They think that one couldn’t get away with it. Again it comes down to trust.

What is trust?

# have confidence or faith in; “We can trust in God”; “Rely on your friends”; “bank on your good education”; “I swear by my grandmother’s recipes”
# something (as property) held by one party (the trustee) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary); “he is the beneficiary of a generous trust …
# allow without fear
# reliance: certainty based on past experience; “he wrote the paper with considerable reliance on the work of other scientists”; “he put more trust in his own two legs than in the gun”
# believe: be confident about something; “I believe that he will come back from the war”
# the trait of believing in the honesty and reliability of others; “the experience destroyed his trust and personal dignity”
# hope: expect and wish; “I trust you will behave better from now on”; “I hope she understands that she cannot expect a raise”
# a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service; “they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly”
# entrust: confer a trust upon; “The messenger was entrusted with the general’s secret”; “I commit my soul to God”
# faith: complete confidence in a person or plan etc; “he cherished the faith of a good woman”; “the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust”
# extend credit to; “don’t trust my ex-wife; I won’t pay her debts anymore”
# confidence: a trustful relationship; “he took me into his confidence”; “he betrayed their trust”

It seems that “trust” is replete with “belief and confidence being placed in” others. Here in lies the problem with such a complex discussion about climate science. It is complex and most people tune out when the math gets mentioned. As a result of eyes glazing over they revert to the basic human feeling of trusting another, often trusting the “experts with authority”. I suspect that in the global warming climate debates most people suffer from the belief stricken false argument of appealing to authority since they can’t deal with or won’t deal with the science involved.

Part of the reason is that people often want to simplify by distilling the options down to a simple decision. They don’t want to have to evaluate the thousands of details involved as it takes a considerable amount of time to comprehend each new detail.

I started this blog after a year or so following the debate. What happened was enlightening to me that the facade of “the truth as known by the consensus popular view of science” on many topics was shattered when I asked a couple of questions. It turned out that I simply wanted to comprehend the basic science behind the claims of man made global warming climate change. As someone dedicated to life long learning and a deep interest in science, I work as a systems scientist and with complex software and hardware systems, I thought it would be good to learn the basics by asking a few questions. So I was at a science blog and posted a couple of questions about an article that I’d seen come up in a Google search. The article was from a weather man in South America commenting on Darwin’s notes during his long voyage, the comments were about the climate. The article was suggesting that the climate hasn’t really changed all that much since then. Well not knowing the “veracity” of such claims I thought I’d ask a few questions of people who seemed to be knowledgeable about science and climate science.

The response was shocking indeed. Very quickly I was vilified for asking questions that hit at the assumption of man made global warming climate change. As I pointed out that they weren’t answering the questions but were simply engaging in ad hominem personal attacks and being unscientific in doing so it escalated to the point where I wasn’t just booted off their forums but was banned and all my comments were deleted in the process. Censorship was at work, and alive and well. At some point I might post the copies of the portions of the conversations from those postings that I had the fortitude to save. In any event the specific details aren’t the main point I’m making with this story of what happened.

What occurs to me is that each person makes a mental representation, a map if you will, of what they think is objective reality. Portions of this map are highly accurate. Other portions of the map aren’t so accurate. The key thing that people forget is that “The Map Isn’t the Territory.”

Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” – Alfred Korzybski

This applies in science as scientists need – as a result of human biology and in particular as a result of human brain biology – to make a mental map of objective reality. By necessity this map will have its accurate portions and its inaccurate portions and parts everywhere in between. A main challenge in science, other than the complexities of technology and technical or theoretical knowledge, is ensuring that one’s map is accurate in as many places that matter and importantly in as many places as is necessary to support one’s science. The challenge rests is determining what is real in objective reality and what is just (as in only perceived to be) real in one’s map of objective reality. If it’s only real in ones map of objective reality and not actually real in objective reality then what we are dealing with is a belief and not objective reality.

In science the resolution of belief verses what is really real is supposed to be what can be proven to be real via tools such as the scientific method which uses experiment and observations to confirm or refute science claims from our maps of reality. Of course even when our maps of objective reality are confirmed to the Nth digit of precision they are still maps, although possibly highly accurate maps, and not objective reality itself.

Nature, the mother not the journal, is the final judge in all matters of science – not human judgments, not peer review consensus, not peer review refutations, not our opinions. Nature is the final judge, jury and executioner of all scientific knowledge and for what is real in objective reality. We only need adjust our maps to be as accurate as possible with Nature. This is of course harder said than done. Climate science is one such place where that is particularly difficult due to the high complexity of the many Natural Systems involved.

The deep challenge comes in when there are many differing views on what is being observed, theorized and concluded by human scientists. As humans scientists are also fallible. The scientific method and process is supposed to mitigate against this human bias towards our favorite maps of objective reality.

As the Climategate emails, documents and programs have confirmed the so called consensus and peer review process and even the very heart of the climate science itself has been deeply compromised. Humans it seems, yes even the previously trusted and venerated Climategate alleged scientists have fallen into the ancient patterns of our ancestors – belief stricken group think, thought control or thought management tactics, and politics.

One of the possible outcomes of the Climategate affair is that scientists involved in climate science might start speaking out about how their science research refutes the mainstream group think consensus views.

Any scientific hypothesis is supposed to rise or fail based upon the evidence. It’s coming on a year since I started this blog, Paths To Knowledge dot net, and I’ve yet to even begin to scratch the surface of comprehending the many thousands of issues and detailed points in climate science. No wonder the typical person gives up and takes up “trust in authorities”, as it’s a massive challenge just learning the issues let alone the much more difficult challenge in being able to evaluate these issues and make a determination that has anything to actually do with objective reality. Sure it’s easy to make choices and build up a map of the world that one thinks is reality, it’s quite another to be able to build up a map that can withstand the hard objective tests of the scientific method.

The more that I learn about the science of climate science the less and less the promoted map of man made global warming climate change makes any sense.

Some say there is a mountain of evidence. That may well be, and if so please bring it to me for I can’t see the mountain from where I currently stand.

Nature is the final judge of all science. It is not in the minds of men but in Nature where we test the mettle of any scientific claims.

In my journey to find out for myself what the actual science says and what the criticisms of that science say I’m not only learning about the climate science and other sciences but I’m learning a lot about human nature and the nature of “belief” and “trust” and “faith” and how these can be seriously dark forces when the masses of humanity take up a mental map of reality that doesn’t correspond to the objective reality of Nature itself.

One thing that constantly amazes me when talking to people about the climate is that most people cut off the discussion when it gets too detailed or when a point challenges a “belief” they have about it. For example, many people state that they north polar cap is melting and that that is serious evidence of man made global warming climate change. Ok, I say, what about the observed fact that the amount of ice on Earth is about constant with the southern hemisphere growing in ice about as much as the northern hemisphere loses ice? At this point many people loose their grasp on the conversation when they invoke appeals to authority. This is part of the challenge of science education but even deeper is the problem of how do you teach or educate people about a science that is in flux or that has so much controversy particularly when it’s denied that there is any controversy within the community of authorities on climate science?

How do people of reason comprehend the complexities of climate science let alone determine what is real and what is belief stricken dogma or bad science?

The interesting thing about belief stricken maps of objective reality is that they die with you while the objective reality of Nature keeps on going regardless of us or how we view it.

A real profound question is how are we being in the face of a global pandemic of belief stricken humans who have maps of objective reality that are so far from Nature that it has a serious impact upon society? How does one effectively communicate empowering people to actually grasp and most importantly test the notions of climate science themselves? Is it even possible? Will there always need to be trust and belief involved? How many does it take to shift the paradigm?

The climategate documents demonstrate that one or a few people dedicated to finding out the scientific truths can make a significant difference to the conversation as well as to the actual science involved. As the political shock waves of Climategate reverberate across the world and in the minds of key decision makers what are the next steps?

As I end this first year studying climate science and posting over 400 articles do I have any definitive answers on man made global warming climate science? No, what I’ve seen deeply and profoundly has shaken my own mental maps in the confidence of “science” especially that of what one reads in the popular media and online but even more so of “peer reviewed” articles. I’m much more skeptical of scientific claims in the sense that I’m continuing to ask basic questions of any science that I come across. The spirit of science is to ask questions and is to question all the basic assumptions. The spirit of science education is to allow those questions and to engage with those asking to spread scientific knowledge but also to vet the science. Anything less isn’t science but is something best left to our ancestors in the dark caves of history.

The enlightenment faces its greatest challenge, the power of belief, faith, trust and confidence to distort the best mental maps we have of objective reality into political propaganda tools.

What ever you do find out the science for yourself from a direct as possible a source. Never believe what science writers or science journalists say as their opinions are very often biased due to their own belief stricken conclusions already made. Be INDEPENDENT! Find out for yourself.

The other probably better caution is to not make a decision on man made global warming climate change unless you’ve done extensive research from direct sources and have learned the science and counter science. This point of view is based upon the reality that climate change is a very complex field of science and it’s not easily reducible to platitudes or simplistic beliefs. There are also many social and economic policies now being intertwined with the science mixing up the clarity with their political propaganda messages. Use extreme caution with anyone who says the science is settled or that consensus is science for as we know from basic science philosophy these are never the case as science is always the pursuit of the nature of objective reality.

[:)]

Posted in Charles Darwin, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Ethics in Science, Get some perspective people, Gravity, Green Religion, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Ontology of Being, Paradigm Shift, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown | 8 Comments »

If the Climate Alarmists Are Not Hiding Anything Why Do They Keep Calling Security To Avoid Answering Questions on AGW and Climategate?

Posted by pwl on December 12, 2009

Thrice FOUR times CAUGHT ON TAPE people have been removed who asked inconvenient questions of climate alarmists; in two cases one person each, in one case three people, and now in the FOURTH case the journalists microphone was destroyed by a security guard! That’s five four people being forcibly removed and their questions avoided by climate alarmists. The journalist has tried on THREE separate occasions now to ask Al Gore questions which Al Gore refuses to answer.

Let’s see the evil anti-scientific deeds of the climate alarmists. Evil because they use force or the threat of force to remove people who’s questions they don’t like.

This article is a follow up of an earlier article, Al Gore Illegally Assaulting, Harassing and Detaining People With his Security Goons With Guns To Avoid Any Questions on Climategate and AGW, commenting on the first two incidents. But first the latest incident at the Copenhagen, aka Dupenhagen, Climate Conference 2009 where armed guard gets testy.

Journalist Phelim McAleer (‘Mine Your Own Business’, ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) asks Prof Stephen Schneider from Stanford University an Inconvenient Question about ‘Climategate’ emails. McAleer is interrupted twice by Prof Schneider’s assistant and UN staff and then told to stop filming by an armed UN security guard.

In this episode of avoid the reality based questions the climate alarmist Al Gore has the conference organizers force the questioner out.

The director of “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” a documentary challenging Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” dares to ask a question at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference. Apparently Mr. Gore only allows the ‘right kind’ of questions to be asked of him.

The following is the newest and third incident involving Al Gore refusing to answer questions from journalist Phelim McAleer that has been caught on tape. This time a security guard destroyed the journalist’s microphone! Is it only time before we see Blood and Gore?

This next incident is one of the more egregious incidents caught on tape so far as three men are assaulted as they are forcibly removed by Al Gore’s security personnel (likely secret service?). All it took was one subtle glance by Al Gore to the security guy and the assaults against the questioners began.

CHICAGO IL On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.

When will these climate alarmists who are using force and the elimination of speech to avoid answering realiyt based questions of their alarmist claims?

Remember in science those making the claims are the ones obligated to answer all challenges if they don’t want their hypothesis falsified. By avoiding the questions the are in essence admitting that their hypothesis has been falsified.

Posted in Avoiding Quesitons, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Ethics in Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Terrorfying, Video | Leave a Comment »

The Un-Noble Rest in Pieces Death Prize Awarded to USA President Barack Obama by The Nobel Arms Merchant of Death Foundation

Posted by pwl on December 11, 2009

The acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by Barack Obama, the US president, has sparked constroversy. Obama received the prize dedicated to peace in Oslo, pledging to strive for a better world and pursue building a “just and lasting peace”. But critics have attacked the decision to award the prize to Obama, pointing out he is actively leading his nation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and last week ordered 30,000 more troops to join the Afghan conflict.

The Nobel Prize was created by an arms merchant of death, Alfred Bernhard Nobel.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Disasters, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Insanity beyond Insanity, Politics, Scams, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, Total Control Over Our Lives, Vaporizing Earth!, Video, Violent, Watching the Watchers, Yikes! | 1 Comment »

Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009 Conference Begins with Fear Mongering Propaganda

Posted by pwl on December 7, 2009

George Orwell never imagined that the Mad Men of Madison Avenue would get involved in masterful media manipulation.

Don’t fall for their end of the world propaganda. Water World is a fictional film as is An Inconvenient Truth.

Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of the Royal Society since 1660!

Ask, no demand, to be shown the evidence for AGW. Take no one’s word for Mann-Made Global Warming Climate Change! Ask for the hard factual verifiable (that’s always the part that is missing) evidence! Where is the proof? Don’t just tell us that there are mountains of evidence, that isn’t acceptable since it’s just your word for it. SHOW the evidence. Show the mountain of proof. Show the data. Show the calculations. Open the climate science to public scrutiny. Prove it don’t attempt to sell it! I need proof and evidence that the soothsayers of climatic doom are actually have a predictive science rather than just readings of dead tree entrails!

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science Attitude, Climategate, Damn it!, Double Yikes!!, Dupenhagen aka Copenhagen 2009, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Religion, Science over Propaganada, The Sky Is Falling, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Zombie Environmentalists | Leave a Comment »

Climate Science Needs a Reset Button as The Stink of Intellectual Corruption is Overpowering

Posted by pwl on December 4, 2009

An amazing editorial by the CBC’s Rex Murphy. Stunning in it’s clarity. Absolutely stunning. Breathtaking in it’s scope. A video that everyone interested in their planet must see.

Here is the Rex Murphy transcript interspersed with memorable quotes including an expanded quote from Clive Crook.

“When Jon Stewart the bantum rooster of conventional wisdom makes jokes about it you know Climategate has reached critical mass. Said Stewart: ‘Poor Al Gore, Global Warming completely debunked via the very internet he [you] invented.‘.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bad Science, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Caustic Scientists, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Definition of Terms, Double Yikes!!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Majestic Universe, Paradigm Shift, Philosophy, Politics, Proofs Needed, Quotations, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Really Funny, Scams, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, The End is Nigh, Video, Yikes! | 2 Comments »

Shaping the News Masterfully, Jon Stewart Frames Climategate

Posted by pwl on December 2, 2009

We have seen Noam Chomsky’s principle of “Manufacturing Consent” working with the Climategate criminals Jones, Mann, et. al.. A conspiracy of “values and beliefs”, an elitist clique that thought that they were above the rest of the people they worked for, us. Other scientists have this “academic” elitist bias or shared value, that says that you need not just the “qualifications” but the “right attitude” otherwise you’re “outside the group”. Einstein broke the mold as have McIntyre and others, Einstein was a “patent clerk” when he worked on his famous breakthroughs.

Now we see it with Jon Stewart. While making light of the Climategate in a really funny way he reveals his bias in that he “believes” in “global warming” when he says “does it [Climategate] disprove global warming, no”. Unfortunately it’s much more complex than Jon Stewart realizes and that his shared values and beliefs in “global warming” blind him from deeper inquiry. OR, as a masterful media perception shaper he’s doing his job of making people laugh with short segments and the Climategate is way too much to get into and his demographic also shares his values in “global warming”.

In any event the science will clearly demonstrate what’s going on as time unfolds and Nature does what she does.

What’s interesting in Jon Stewart’s masterful media play is really how good he is at it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Awesome, Awesome beyond awesome, Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Really Funny, Respect Nature or Else, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, Something to think about, Video, WOW!!! | 2 Comments »

Political Climate Chains

Posted by pwl on December 2, 2009

Caught Green Handed (pdf).

Posted in Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Climate Science, Climategate, Complex Systems, Conspiracy Theory, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Energy, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Film, Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, My Invisible Friend Needs Me For His-Her-Its Existence, Politics, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown | Leave a Comment »

Al Gore Illegally Assaulting, Harassing and Detaining People With his Security Goons With Guns To Avoid Any Questions on Climategate and AGW

Posted by pwl on November 30, 2009

Three men assaulted by goons under orders from Al Gore.

Does Al Gore still think he has sovereign powers as an ex-president? Where does Al Gore get off illegally forcibly assaulting people who ask him questions he doesn’t like? I know of nothing in the US Constitution that would permit a private citizen to use force as was done here multiple times.

The evidence shows that Al Gore considers questions on Climategate and AGW from non-violent people to be an imminent security threat as he orders his (secret service?) security detail to forcibly remove three people who ask inconvenient questions Mr Gore doesn’t like.

“CHICAGO IL – On Tuesday, November 24th 2009, We Are Change Chicago attended a book signing with former vice president Al Gore, at the Borders Bookstore on 150 N. State Street.

First up was Saad Ali. As he approached Gore, he peacefully and respectably asked, “Sir, can you comment on the emails and documents that were hacked [ClimateGate] that reveal… that the research was a fraud and that it was all manipulated?” Gore, with an evil smirk, claimed that “he never read them.” By the look on his face and his stutter, it became quite clear that Gore was extremely uncomfortable with the question, so he quickly glared towards his security. The agents grabbed and assaulted Saad, escorting him away from Gore for merely asking a simple question. The press took notice and started filming and snapping pictures of what was going on. One of which appeared the next day in the Chicago Sun Times.”

Quotes, image and video from Al Gore Confronted On Climategate in Chicago

This of course isn’t the first time that Al Gore has used intimidation and assault to stifle free debate and free speech of his critics as these following videos testify to.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Adult Supervision Required, Awesome, Bad Science Attitude, Belief Stricken, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Climate Science, Climategate, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Double Yikes!!, Eeek!, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Police State Insanity, Politics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Scams, Science over Propaganada, Science Smackdown, Stifling Dissent with Force, TerrorForming Earth, Terrorfying, Video | 1 Comment »

All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge

Posted by pwl on November 5, 2009

All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge.

“A United Kingdom court has ruled that a man can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change. …

Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.” Beliefs on climate like Religion, court rules

The word “belief” is a problematic word with so many definitions that you have to pretty much define what you mean either by the context or by direction definition.

Generally when I’m down on the word belief I specifically mean “religious belief” or “supernatural belief” and not a belief that my car is still parked where it is.

I don’t think it’s responsible to say that “I believe in Newton’s Gravity Theory” as to use the word belief to talk about facts mis-communicates to the masses of people out there without scientific training. It’s better to use other words. Your “belief” that letting go of a stone has nothing to do with whether or not the stone falls.

Common uses of belief basically mean that you don’t know or don’t have evidence and that you assume it is true anyway. Since you do have evidence that dropping a stone on earth will have it fall (unless it’s otherwise supported or blocked) using the word belief is a mistake. One instead should say “I know that when I let go of a stone at chest level, it will fall (assuming that it’s not supported or blocked in some other manner).” This has clarity.

It is a big mistake for Richard Dawkins to be using the word belief the way he does with regards to scientific knowledge. He should be more careful and define his terms more precisely when talking about scientific knowledge and what is know and what isn’t since the religious masses use the word belief differently.

Sure people have a “belief” that X person will be a good political leader, but that is an entirely different category and meaning of belief than “belief that god exists” which is a statement that has no evidence and will never have any evidence in all probability not even mentioning all the evidence against the possibility of any gods existing.

As for climate change caused by man the science isn’t settled and if you think it is that is your “belief” and not a valid scientific statement. The more I learn the more I learn that we don’t yet have conclusive answers and that politics of extreme environmentalism started it and now that mainstream politicians have gotten into the act it’s now even more highly suspect. So I’d say show the evidence in a context where it can be audited by anyone which means showing all the data, raw and manipulated, detailed and comprehensive explanations for the manipulations, the statistics methods involved and why they were chosen, the software and the data used to create the graphs, all the scientists notes, photographs, and other materials used in the preparation of all the science papers. It’s clear that climate scientists (and others) have not been up to the standards of other fields and that all publically funded science needs to have it’s standards of openness and auditability raised.

I’m a very strong show me the hard evidence guy. Belief has no place in science nor in the communication of science nor in the science education process unless it specifically means “we think it could be true or false but we don’t just know yet”.

Believing that murder is wrong is a statement of one’s moral values and the word belief is often used although I’d question it’s use there. I’d not say it that way. I’d rather be more specific and say that “Murder is wrong because human life is valuable.”

Is saying “gravity sucks” a statement of “belief” or is it a succinct statement of the known laws of Gravity? I pick the latter.

“The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. … Later epistemologists have questioned the “justified true belief” definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether “belief” is a useful notion at all.” – wikipedia

So “belief” is shaky ground at best, and as such it’s best to avoid using it when speaking generally about science or anything that is a statement of objective reality or it’s nature. I also use it carefully. My main use is in talking about the belief and faith stricken members of society.

Is that my belief? No, it’s a precautionary guidance principle based on knowledge gained from far too many conversations with the belief stricken who set well placed linguistic and philosophical traps.

Posted in Bad Ideas, Bad Science, Bad Science Attitude, Belief Stricken, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, Gravity, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Invisible Friend Crowd, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Philosophy, Politics, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada | 1 Comment »

Religion puts your mind in a straight jacket

Posted by pwl on September 3, 2009

Religion puts your mind in a straight jacket.” – Dr Death aka Doctor Jack Kevorkian

Creeds are a weakness of the will. All religions are to make you conform to a different way of thinking than you feel naturally.” – Doctor Death aka Doctor Jack Kevorkian in part quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson.

America fits all Fourteen Principles of fascism.” – Doctor Jack Kevorkian

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism: here and here.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause.
4. Supremacy of the Military..
5. Rampant Sexism.
6. Controlled Mass Media.
7. Obsession with National Security.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined.
9. Corporate Power is Protected.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption.
14. Fraudulent Elections.

Posted in 1984, Adult Supervision Required, Awesome beyond awesome, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Biology, Do Not Click At Work, Ethics in Science, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science Required, Health, History, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, Majestic Universe, Medicine, My Invisible Friend Needs Me For His-Her-Its Existence, Philosophy, Police State Insanity, Politics, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Really Funny, Religion, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Watching the Watchers, WOW!!! | Leave a Comment »

Open Source Science is the path through the dark into the new enlightenment

Posted by pwl on July 27, 2009

The articles linked here raise some very disturbing problems with the manner in which climate science is being conducted. This is especially important due to the HUGE public costs about to be undertaken over the next decades.

“The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia have been refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies.” – slashdot

Opening Science is the way forward, the path through the darkness, the endarkenment of closed source science.

If’s it’s paid by the public purse it must be OPEN data that anyone can see and audit.

Yes, you feel certain that you are right about your science but lets see the actual data and the methods used by that science to prove that your certainty is justified.

Science is based upon the notion of being able to validate or invalidate in whole or in part the “claims” made by various “hypotheses” put forward.

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion.

When you can’t audit the work of scientists whose work is the basis of public policy then you and the public are being endarkened and kept excluded. But why? For what or whose agenda?

As long as the data, the methods, the algorithms, the statical analysis, the step by step procedures are kept secret the work is suspect to scientific fraud.

Have the guts to open your science to the light of day, it will in the end be better for it once it’s vetted by more eyes and brains and math nuts and others poking holes in it.

ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THEIR SCIENCE CLOSED AND SECRET is suspect of FRAUD. What are they hiding? Are they simply embarrassed to admit that they might be wrong? That they’ve made mistakes? That they are afraid that others might gain an edge in the grant process and shut them out of funding?

Open Source Science is the way forward through the darkness into the light that empower verification and falsification and thus progress EITHER way!!!

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion. In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.

The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc… then their work can’t be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.

If you can’t take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don’t belong in science?

Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.


Climate science makes extraordinary claims about Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan

Yet when asked for the data that is claimed to provide some of the evidence the data is refused on POLITICAL grounds. Very disturbing.

Regardless of the reasons that the data is not provided the bad science attitude by the MET office hinders actual science from proceeding. Very disturbing.


When you can’t test a scientific hypothesis or read all of the supporting evidence for it you must then rely on “taking their word for it” which is also known as “accepting based upon belief alone”. This is the end of science bit by bit and leads to the path of the dark side, to an age endarkenment.

When people find science open to validate themselves with experiments that they can do themselves or by reading all the evidence and vetting the work of others belief is eliminated and tested knowledge is obtained by that person bolstering the accuracy of their representation of the universe.

Belief is the enemy of science. Open Source science is the path forward that helps to eliminate belief and lay the ground work for a new scientific enlightenment accessible to the masses.

Terminate belief. Grow your knowledge based upon the scientific method. Stop being a science geek who takes it up the ass from authorities just like the religious nut jobs who take it up the ass from The Pope and his ilk.

Posted in A New Kind of Science [NKS], Awesome beyond awesome, Bad Science Attitude, Believe it or your a denier!, Big Brother Planetary Control System, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Energy, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, Philosophy, Politics, Proofs, Proofs Needed, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science Smackdown, Something to think about | Leave a Comment »

The Wingnuts are at it again with “District 9” from Peter Jackson and Neill Blomkamp

Posted by pwl on July 23, 2009

“The film is about aliens landing in South Africa and becoming confined to a specific area and forced to work.”

Awesome! Fun summer sci-fi films are on the way!!! This looks promising… Moon ruled and now we’ll see who rules Earth!!!

District 9

Posted in Awesome beyond awesome, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Film, Fun, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Police State Insanity, Politics, Rational Thinking, Science Ficition, Space Travel, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, UFO Proof, Vaporizing Earth!, Vehicles, Video, Violent, WOW!!!, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Let’s go Direct to Mars for real!

Posted by pwl on July 22, 2009

Mars Direct is a proposal for a relatively low-cost manned mission to Mars with current rocket technology. The plan was originally detailed in a research paper by Robert Zubrin and David Baker in 1990. The mission was expanded upon in Zubrin’s 1996 book The Case for Mars.

The plan involves launching an unmanned “Earth Return Vehicle” (ERV) directly from Earth’s surface to Mars using a heavy-lift booster derived from Space Shuttle components. The booster is no bigger than the Saturn V used for the Apollo missions. Several launches are made in preparation for the manned mission.

The first of these launches the ERV, a supply of hydrogen, a chemical plant and a small nuclear reactor. Once there, a relatively simple set of chemical reactions (the Sabatier reaction coupled with electrolysis) would combine a small amount of hydrogen carried by the ERV with the carbon dioxide of the Martian atmosphere to create up to 112 tonnes of methane and oxygen propellants, 96 tonnes of which would be needed to return the ERV to Earth at the end of the mission. This process would take approximately ten months to complete.

Some 26 months after the ERV is originally launched from Earth, a second vehicle, the “Mars Habitat Unit” (MHU), would be launched on a high-energy transfer to Mars carrying a crew of four. This vehicle would take some six months to reach Mars. During the trip, artificial gravity would be generated by tying the spent upper stage of the booster to the Habitat Unit, and setting them both rotating about a common axis.

On reaching Mars, the spent upper stage would be jettisoned, with the Habitat Unit aerobraking into Mars orbit before soft-landing in proximity to the ERV. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 18 months on the surface, carrying out a range of scientific research, aided by a small rover vehicle carried aboard their MHU, and powered by excess methane produced by the ERV. To return, they would use the ERV, leaving the MHU for the possible use of subsequent explorers. The propulsion stage of the ERV would be used as a counterweight to generate artificial gravity for the trip back.

The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.

Posted in Awesome, Awesome beyond awesome, Business, Complex Systems, Dreaming, Energy, Ethics in Science, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Gravity, Hard Science, Hard Science Required, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, Invaders from Earth, Learning about Science Organizations, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking, Reality Based Economics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science Info Educational Videos, Science Missions, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, Space Travel, Vehicles, Video, WOW!!! | Leave a Comment »

Iran’s Popular Revolution Driven by the Father that Will Never Go Away

Posted by pwl on July 15, 2009

The full interview is at Axis of Evil: Christopher Hitchens

Posted in Christopher Hitchens, Complex Systems, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Get some perspective people, History, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Philosophy, Politics, Rational Thinking, Religion, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, Video | Leave a Comment »

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number – British Police State Repression in Action

Posted by pwl on July 10, 2009

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number

The Guardian has obtained this police footage of Emily Apple and Val Swain being arrested by surveillance officers after asking for their badge numbers at the Kingsnorth climate camp last year. The two women speak to Paul Lewis about their arrest, imprisonment and official complaint

Clearly the British Police are now on par with the likes of the Iranian State Control freaks.

Maybe the officers, er if they can be called that, the thugs names will come out into the public view. Put the officers in jail and toss away the key.

Posted in 1984, Philosophy, Police State Insanity, Politics, Video, Violent, Watching the Watchers, Yikes! | Leave a Comment »

Hitchens Thinking Clearly Yet Again

Posted by pwl on June 21, 2009

Posted in Awesome, Christopher Hitchens, Fun, Hard Science, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Intelligent Designer - Yeah Right, Philosophy, Politics, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Religion, Video | 1 Comment »

He’ll use his super powers … He’s come to save the day… He’s Barack Obama

Posted by pwl on June 21, 2009

Posted in Climate Science, Fun, Humbled by Nature, Politics, Really Funny, Video | Leave a Comment »

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 Report

Posted by pwl on June 3, 2009

What I find most interesting about the NIPCC 2009 Report is the vast quantity of references to scientific papers and journal articles. Clearly this report raises the bar and for the better. I also appreciate this impressive collection of the materials in one place that seek to educate people about the actual challenges to the “consensus” of AGW.

Science isn’t about consensus, that’s what “agreement realities”, “cult belief systems” and “politics” are about. Science is about asking questions over and over again occasionally coming up with potential answers that make some rational sense and that fit into a framework of knowledge that represents objective reality in a way that can actually be tested or falsified.

Remember that Richard Feynman insisted that we be curious and ask questions as an essential prerequisite of science. His way of being with science is an exemplar for us to follow. It certainly is for me.

“Curiosity demands that we ask questions. If we are standing on the shore, look at the sea, the waves, the foam, the sand, the rocks of different types, listen to sounds. Is the sand other than the rocks? Perhaps it is a multitude of very small stones? Is the moon a great rock? How many sounds are there? … There may be situations where nature has arranged, or we arrange nature, to be simple and to have only few building blocks, so that we can predict exactly what will happen. And thus we can verify the validity of our rules (there might be only few chess pieces in one corner of the chess board, and we can predict the “best move” exactly). … Imagine that the world is a great game of chess played by the “gods”, and we are the observer. We do not know what the rules of the game are, and we are not allowed to ask questions. At first we will learn to distinguish the basic figures (“King”, “Queen”, “Bishop”, …). If we observe long enough, we may catch on to a few of the rules. It is not easy to learn all the rules (every once in a while something like castling is going on that we still do not understand). Even if we know all rules, however, we might not be able to understand why a particular move is made in the game. One problem that we might have is, “How do we tell whether the rules that we guessed are really right if we can not analyze the game very well”? – Richard Feynman. Quotes and fragments in no particular order.

What Richard Feynman was saying is that we need to keep asking the basic fundamental questions, otherwise what’s the point of doing science in the first place? At least that’s a key point I take home and to work.

The scientific method is the heart of this process and others have defined it better than I. The key is that intelligent people are motivated to follow the methods of science as a guide to understanding the scientific claims that are put forward as the way of Nature and in the process set aside their “politics”, their “bias”, their “opinions” and seek a means of verifying the scientific claims of all parties who propose various claims and counter claims and counter counter claims ad infinitum… eventually objective reality might reveal itself as we seek it.

However the dark side of the force, to steal a phrase, is prevalent in many discussions that are “considered sacred” or “considered settled”. Those that have made up their minds to various degrees have solidified their beliefs about what is real and what is not real. Unfortunately there always is a measure of distance between ones beliefs about what is real and the actual objective reality that we all find ourselves actually existing within. I call that distance how “belief stricken” a person’s notions are. Obviously the ideal goal is to eliminate all forms of belief about objective reality with as accurate a model or representation of the actual objective reality as we can.

Raising the bar: As such and in the best traditions of science and the scientific method I urge those reading and engaging in discussion to remove all “ad hominem” personal attacks from their fingers and minds. Please be on your best behavior. Strictly stick to the science please. Thanks so much in advance.

Now let’s get into it. I’ll say from the start that I’ve not yet had a chance to read this voluminous report nor study in depth yet the portions that I have read so far. It looks to be a tome that will take some time to digest. As time goes on I’ll add some updates and comments in this posting or in another on this site.

I think this is fantastic since it brings into one volume much (but not all) of the challenges to the AGW theory.

May the best hypothesis (where best means most highly representative of objective reality) pass the tests of time or be adapted to do so or be falsified and a new hypothesis rise to take it’s place in the best grand tradition of advancing human knowledge of objective reality, aka Nature – our true home. – pwl

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” (PDFs of entire report available for download) coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He received his Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. He was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University and has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.


Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” (PDFs of entire report available for download) coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso.

Executive Summary (PDF available)

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion—that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid- 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations [emphasis in the original].” The IPCC defines “very likely” as at least 90 percent certain. They do not explain how they derive this number. The IPCC also does not define the word “most,” nor do they provide any explanation.

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases (GHG). A comparison of “fingerprints” from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GHG models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GHG contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The IPCC continues to undervalue the overwhelming evidence that, on decadal and centurylong time scales, the Sun and associated atmospheric cloud effects are responsible for much of past climate change. It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a major cause of twentieth-century warming, with anthropogenic GHG making only a minor contribution. In addition, the IPCC ignores, or addresses imperfectly, other science issues that call for discussion and explanation.

These errors and omissions are documented in the present report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The report is divided into nine chapters that are briefly summarized here, and then more fully described in the remainder of this summary.

Chapter 1 (pdf) describes the limitations of the IPCC’s attempt to forecast future climate conditions by using computer climate models. The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its “projections” of little use to policymakers. As sophisticated as today’s state-ofthe- art models are, they suffer deficiencies and shortcomings that could alter even the very sign (plus or minus, warming or cooling) of earth’s projected temperature response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. If the global climate models on which the IPCC relies are not validated or reliable, most of the rest of the AR4, while it makes for fascinating reading, is irrelevant to the public policy debate over what should be done to stop or slow the arrival of global warming.

Chapter 2 (pdf) describes feedback factors that reduce the earth’s temperature sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Scientific studies suggest the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth for a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level is much lower than the IPCC’s estimate. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller than what the IPCC employs.

Chapter 3 (pdf) reviews empirical data on past temperatures. We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate. We reveal the methodological errors of the “hockey stick” diagram of Mann et al., evidence for the existence of a global Medieval Warm Period, flaws in the surface-based temperature record of more modern times, evidence from highly accurate satellite data that there has been no net warming over the past 29 years, and evidence that the distribution of modern warming does not bear the “fingerprint” of an anthropogenic effect.

Chapter 4 (pdf) reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century.

Chapter 5 (pdf) summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. We describe the evidence of a solarclimate link and how these scientists have grappled with the problem of finding a specific mechanism that translates small changes in solar activity into larger climate effects. We summarize how they may have found the answer in the relationships between the sun, cosmic rays and reflecting clouds.

Chapter 6 (pdf) investigates and debunks the widespread fears that global warming might cause more extreme weather. The IPCC claims global warming will cause (or already is causing) more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, storm surges, heat waves, and wildfires. We find little or no support in the peer-reviewed literature for these predictions and considerable evidence to support an opposite prediction: That weather would be less extreme in a warmer world.

Chapter 7 (pdf) examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world’s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.

Chapter 8 (pdf) examines the IPCC’s claim that CO2- induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, both on land and in the world’s oceans. We find there little real-world evidence in support of such claims and an abundance of counter evidence that suggests ecosystem biodiversity will increase in a warmer and CO2-enriched world.

Chapter 9 (pdf) challenges the IPCC’s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health. The IPCC blames high-temperature events for increasing the number of cardiovascular-related deaths, enhancing respiratory problems, and fueling a more rapid and widespread distribution of deadly infectious diseases, such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever. However, a thorough examination of the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that further global warming would likely do just the opposite and actually reduce the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions. We also explain how CO2- induced global warming would help feed a growing global population without major encroachment on natural ecosystems, and how increasing production of biofuels (a strategy recommended by the IPCC) damages the environment and raises the price of food. The research summarized in this report is only a small portion of what is available in the peer reviewed scientific literature. To assist readers who want to explore information not contained between the covers of this volume, we have included Internet hyperlinks to the large and continuously updated databases maintained by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change at co2science.org.

Key Findings by Chapter

Chapter 1 (pdf). Global Climate Models and Their Limitations

• The IPCC places great confidence in the ability of general circulation models (GCMs) to simulate future climate and attribute observed climate change to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

• The forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report were not the outcome of validated scientific procedures. In effect, they are the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. The IPCC’s claim that it is making “projections” rather than “forecasts” is not a plausible defense.

• Today’s state-of-the-art climate models fail to accurately simulate the physics of earth’s radiative energy balance, resulting in uncertainties “as large as, or larger than, the doubled CO2 forcing.”

• A long list of major model imperfections prevents models from properly modeling cloud formation and cloud-radiation interactions, resulting in large differences between model predictions and observations.

• Computer models have failed to simulate even the correct sign of observed precipitation anomalies, such as the summer monsoon rainfall over the Indian region. Yet it is understood that precipitation plays a major role in climate change.

Chapter 2 (pdf). Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing

• Scientific research suggests the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth accepted by the IPCC is too large. Corrected feedbacks in the climate system could reduce climate sensitivity to values that are an order of magnitude smaller.

• Scientists may have discovered a connection between cloud creation and sea surface temperature in the tropics that creates a “thermostat-like control” that automatically vents excess heat into space. If confirmed, this could totally compensate for the warming influence of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions experienced to date, as well as all those that are anticipated to occur in the future.

• The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols. Studies have found their radiative effect is comparable to or larger than the temperature forcing caused by all the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations recorded since pre-industrial times.

• Higher temperatures are known to increase emissions of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from the world’s oceans, which increases the albedo of marine stratus clouds, which has a cooling effect.

• Iodocompounds—created by marine algae— function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.

• As the air’s CO2 content—and possibly its temperature—continues to rise, plants emit greater amounts of carbonyl sulfide gas, which eventually makes it way into the stratosphere, where it is transformed into solar-radiationreflecting sulfate aerosol particles, which have a cooling effect.

• As CO2 enrichment enhances biological growth, atmospheric levels of biosols rise, many of which function as cloud condensation nuclei. Increased cloudiness diffuses light, which stimulates plant growth and transfers more fixed carbon into plant and soil storage reservoirs.

• Since agriculture accounts for almost half of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in some countries, there is concern that enhanced plant growth due to CO2 enrichment might increase the amount and warming effect of this greenhouse gas. But field research shows that N2O emissions fall as CO2 concentrations and temperatures rise, indicating this is actually another negative climate feedback.

• Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas. An enhanced CO2 environment has been shown to have “neither positive nor negative consequences” on atmospheric methane concentrations. Higher temperatures have been shown to result in reduced methane release from peatbeds. Methane emissions from cattle have been reduced considerably by altering diet, immunization, and genetic selection.

Chapter 3 (pdf). Observations: Temperature Records

• The IPCC claims to find evidence in temperature records that the warming of the twentieth century was “unprecedented” and more rapid than during any previous period in the past 1,300 years. But the evidence it cites, including the “hockey-stick” representation of earth’s temperature record by Mann et al., has been discredited and contradicted by many independent scholars.

• A corrected temperature record shows temperatures around the world were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago than they are today, and have averaged 2-3ºF warmer than today’s temperatures over the past 10,000 years.

• Evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period is extensive and irrefutable. Scientists working with a variety of independent methodologies have found it in proxy records from Africa, Antarctica, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America.

• The IPCC cites as evidence of modern global warming data from surface-based recording stations yielding a 1905-2005 temperature increase of 0.74ºC +/- 0.18ºC. But this temperature record is known to be positively biased by insufficient corrections for the nongreenhouse- gas-induced urban heat island (UHI) effect. It may be impossible to make proper corrections for this deficiency, as the UHI of even small towns dwarfs any concomitant augmented greenhouse effect that may be present.

• Highly accurate satellite data, adjusted for orbit drift and other factors, show a much more modest warming trend in the last two decades of the twentieth century and a dramatic decline in the warming trend in the first decade of the twentyfirst century.

• The “fingerprint” or pattern of warming observed in the twentieth century differs from the pattern predicted by global climate models designed to simulate CO2-induced global warming. Evidence reported by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is unequivocal: All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the tropics, peaking around 10 km at roughly twice the surface value. However, the temperature data from balloons give the opposite result: no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.

• Temperature records in Greenland and other Arctic areas reveal that temperatures reached a maximum around 1930 and have decreased in recent decades. Longer-term studies depict oscillatory cooling since the Climatic Optimum of the mid-Holocene (~9000-5000 years BP), when it was perhaps 2.5º C warmer than it is now.

• The average temperature history of Antarctica provides no evidence of twentieth century warming. While the Antarctic peninsula shows recent warming, several research teams have documented a cooling trend for the interior of the continent since the 1970s.

Chapter 4 (pdf). Observations: Glaciers, Sea Ice, Precipitation, and Sea Level

• Glaciers around the world are continuously advancing and retreating, with a general pattern of retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of a increased rate of melting overall since CO2 levels rose above their pre-industrial levels, suggesting CO2 is not responsible for glaciers melting.

• Sea ice area and extent have continued to increase around Antarctica over the past few decades. Evidence shows that much of the reported thinning of Arctic sea ice that occurred in the 1990s was a natural consequence of changes in ice dynamics caused by an atmospheric regime shift, of which there have been several in decades past and will likely be several in the decades to come, totally irrespective of past or future changes in the air’s CO2 content. The Arctic appears to have recovered from its 2007 decline.

• Global studies of precipitation trends show no net increase and no consistent trend with CO2, contradicting climate model predictions that warming should cause increased precipitation. Research on Africa, the Arctic, Asia, Europe, and North and South America all find no evidence of a significant impact on precipitation that could be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

• The cumulative discharge of the world’s rivers remained statistically unchanged between 1951 and 2000, a finding that contradicts computer forecasts that a warmer world would cause large changes in global streamflow characteristics. Droughts and floods have been found to be less frequent and severe during the Current Warm Period than during past periods when temperatures were even higher than they are today.

• The results of several research studies argue strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In fact, in the case of Antarctica, they suggest just the opposite—i.e., that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.

• The mean rate of global sea level rise has not accelerated over the recent past. The determinants of sea level are poorly understood due to considerable uncertainty associated with a number of basic parameters that are related to the water balance of the world’s oceans and the meltwater contribution of Greenland and Antarctica. Until these uncertainties are satisfactorily resolved, we cannot be confident that short-lived changes in global temperature produce corresponding changes in sea level.

Chapter 5 (pdf). Solar Variability and Climate Cycles

• The IPCC claims the radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 Wm-2, an order of magnitude smaller than its estimated net anthropogenic forcing of +1.66 Wm-2. A large body of research suggests that the IPCC has got it backwards, that it is the sun’s influence that is responsible for the lion’s share of climate change during the past century and beyond.

• The total energy output of the sun changes by only 0.1 percent during the course of the solar cycle, although larger changes may be possible over periods of centuries. On the other hand, the ultraviolet radiation from the sun can change by several percent over the solar cycle – as indeed noted by observing changes in stratospheric ozone. The largest changes, however, occur in the intensity of the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field.

• Reconstructions of ancient climates reveal a close correlation between solar magnetic activity and solar irradiance (or brightness), on the one hand, and temperatures on earth, on the other. Those correlations are much closer than the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature.

• Cosmic rays could provide the mechanism by which changes in solar activity affect climate. During periods of greater solar magnetic activity, greater shielding of the earth occurs, resulting in less cosmic rays penetrating to the lower atmosphere, resulting in fewer cloud condensation nuclei being produced, resulting in fewer and less reflective low-level clouds occurring, which leads to more solar radiation being absorbed by the surface of the earth, resulting (finally) in increasing near-surface air temperatures and global warming.

• Strong correlations between solar variability and precipitation, droughts, floods, and monsoons have all been documented in locations around the world. Once again, these correlations are much stronger than any relationship between these weather phenomena and CO2.

• The role of solar activity in causing climate change is so complex that most theories of solar forcing must be considered to be as yet unproven. But it would also be appropriate for climate scientists to admit the same about the role of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations in driving recent global warming.

Chapter 6 (pdf). Observations: Extreme Weather

• The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, characterized by more frequent and severe episodes of drought, flooding, cyclones, precipitation variability, storms, snow, storm surges, temperature variability, and wildfires. But has the last century – during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia – experienced significant trends in any of these extreme weather events?

• Droughts have not become more extreme or erratic in response to global warming. Real-world evidence from Africa, Asia, and other continents find no trend toward more frequent or more severe droughts. In most cases, the worst droughts in recorded meteorological history were much milder than droughts that occurred periodically during much colder times.

• Floods were more frequent and more severe during the Little Ice Age than they have been during the Current Warm Period. Flooding in Asia, Europe, and North America has tended to be less frequent and less severe during the twentieth century.

• The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.” But despite the supposedly “unprecedented” warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific oceans.

• A number of real-world observations demonstrate that El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions during the latter part of the twentieth century were not unprecedented in terms of their frequency or magnitude. Long-term records suggest that when the earth was significantly warmer than it is currently, ENSO events were substantially reduced or perhaps even absent.

• There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.

• As the earth has warmed over the past 150 years, during its recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather.

• Between 1950 and 2002, during which time the air’s CO2 concentration rose by 20 percent, there was no net change in either the mean onset date or duration of snow cover for the continent of North America. There appears to have been a downward trend in blizzards.

• Storm surges have not increased in either frequency or magnitude as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen. In the majority of cases investigated, they have tended to decrease.

• Air temperature variability almost always decreases when mean air temperature rises, be it in cases of temperature change over tens of thousands of years or over mere decades, or even between individual cooler and warmer years when different ENSO states are considered. The claim that global warming will lead to more extremes of climate and weather, including more extremes of temperature itself, is not supported by real-world data.

• Although one can readily identify specific parts of the planet that have experienced both significant increases and decreases in land area burned by wildfires over the last two to three decades of the twentieth century, for the globe as a whole there was no relationship between global warming and total area burned over this period.

Chapter 7 (pdf). Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enhancement

• A 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content typically raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; and this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways (C3, C4, CAM) of photosynthesis. For woody plants, the response is even greater. The productivity benefits of CO2 enrichment are also experienced by aquatic plants, including freshwater algae and macrophytes, and marine microalgae and macroalgae.

• The amount of carbon plants gain per unit of water lost—or water-use efficiency—typically rises as the CO2 content of the air rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. In addition, the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant biomass production is often greater under water-stressed conditions than it is when plants are well watered.

• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment helps ameliorate the detrimental effects of several environmental stresses on plant growth and development, including high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory. In fact, the percentage growth enhancement produced by an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration is often even greater under stressful and resource-limited conditions than it is when growing conditions are ideal.

• As the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, plants will likely exhibit enhanced rates of photosynthesis and biomass production that will not be diminished by any global warming that might occur concurrently. In fact, if the ambient air temperature rises, the growth-promoting effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment will likely also rise, becoming more and more robust.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content likely will not favor the growth of weedy species over that of crops and native plants.

• The growth of plants is generally not only enhanced by CO2-induced increases in net photosynthesis during the light period of the day, it is also enhanced by CO2-induced decreases in respiration during the dark period.

• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, as well as any degree of warming that might possibly accompany it, will not materially alter the rate of decomposition of the world’s soil organic matter and will probably enhance biological carbon sequestration. Continued increases in the air’s CO2 concentration and temperature will not result in massive losses of carbon from earth’s peatlands. To the contrary, these environmental changes—if they persist—would likely work together to enhance carbon capture.

• Other biological effects of CO2 enhancement include enhanced plant nitrogen-use efficiency, longer residence time of carbon in the soil, and increased populations of earthworms and soil nematodes.

• The aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration (which greatly enhances vegetative productivity) and its antitranspiration effect (which enhances plant wateruse efficiency and enables plants to grow in areas that were once too dry for them) are stimulating plant growth across the globe in places that previously were too dry or otherwise unfavorable for plant growth, leading to a significant greening of the Earth.

• Elevated CO2 reduces, and nearly always overrides, the negative effects of ozone pollution on plant photosynthesis, growth and yield. It also reduces atmospheric concentrations of isoprene, a highly reactive non-methane hydrocarbon that is emitted in copious quantities by vegetation and is responsible for the production of vast amounts of tropospheric ozone.

Chapter 8 (pdf). Species Extinction

• The IPCC claims “new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread” and the “projected impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance, since global losses in biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence).” These claims are not supported by scientific research.

• The world’s species have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes on par with or greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.

• The four known causes of extinctions are huge asteroids striking the planet, human hunting, human agriculture, and the introduction of alien species (e.g., lamprey eels in the Great Lakes and pigs in Hawaii). None of these causes are connected with either global temperatures or atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

• Real-world data collected by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) show the rate of extinctions at the end of the twentieth century was the lowest since the sixteenth century—despite 150 years of rising world temperatures, growing populations, and industrialization. Many, and probably most, of the world’s species benefited from rising temperatures in the twentieth century.

• As long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most plants will not need to migrate toward cooler conditions, as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Plants will likely spread poleward in latitude and upward in elevation at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges, thanks to longer growing seasons and less frost, while their heatlimited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.

• Land animals also tend to migrate poleward and upward, to areas where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past. They follow earth’s plants, while the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges are often little affected, allowing them to also expand their ranges.

• The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time—when temperatures were as much as 10°- 15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were two to seven times higher than they are currently—provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment.

• The 18- to 59-cm warming-induced sea-level rise that is predicted for the coming century by the IPCC falls well within the range (2 to 6 mm per year) of typical coral vertical extension rates, which exhibited a modal value of 7 to 8 mm per year during the Holocene and can be more than double that value in certain branching corals. Rising sea levels should therefore present no difficulties for coral reefs.

• The rising CO2 content of the atmosphere may induce very small changes in the well-buffered ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO2 enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon. Real-world observations indicate that elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures are having a positive effect on most corals.

• Polar bears have survived changes in climate that exceed those that occurred during the twentieth century or are forecast by the IPCC’s computer models.

• Most populations of polar bears are growing, not shrinking, and the biggest influence on polar bear populations is not temperature but hunting by humans, which historically has taken a large toll on polar bear populations.

• Forecasts of dwindling polar bear populations assume trends in sea ice and temperature that are counterfactual, rely on unvalidated computer climate models that are known to be unreliable, and violate most of the principles of scientific forecasting.

Chapter 9 (pdf). Human Health Effects

• The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” and will “increase malnutrition and consequent disorders.” In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels have played an indispensible role in making it possible to feed a growing global population without encroaching on natural ecosystems.

• Global warming reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease related to low temperatures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardiovascular disease associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.

• Mortality due to respiratory diseases decrease as temperatures rise and as temperature variability declines.

• Claims that malaria and tick-borne diseases are spreading or will spread across the globe as a result of CO2-induced warming are not supported in the scientific literature.

• Total heat-related mortality rates have been shown to be lower in warmer climates and to be unaffected by rising temperatures during the twentieth century.

• The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years on the order of 70 percent for wheat, 28 percent for cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.

• The quality of plant food in the CO2-enriched world of the future, in terms of its protein and antioxidant (vitamin) contents, will be no lower and probably will be higher than in the past.

• There is evidence that some medicinal substances in plants will be present in significantly greater concentrations, and certainly in greater absolute amounts, than they are currently.

• The historical increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and its continued upward trend will likely provide more of the same benefit.

• Higher levels of CO2 in the air help to advance all three parts of a strategy to resolve the tension between the need to feed a growing population and the desire to preserve natural ecosystems: increasing crop yield per unit of land area, increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and increasing crop yield per unit of water used.

• Biofuels for transportation (chiefly ethanol, biodiesel, and methanol) are being used in growing quantities in the belief that they provide environmental benefits. In fact, those benefits are very dubious. By some measures, “the net effect of biofuels production … is to increase CO2 emissions for decades or centuries relative to the emissions caused by fossil fuel use.”

• Biofuels compete with livestock growers and food processors for corn, soybeans, and other feedstocks, leading to higher food prices. Rising food prices in 2008 led to food riots in several developing countries. The production of biofuels also consumes enormous quantities of water compared with the production of gasoline.

• There can be little doubt that ethanol mandates and subsidies have made both food and energy more, not less, expensive and therefore less available to a growing population. The extensive damage to natural ecosystems already caused by this poor policy decision, and the much greater destruction yet to come, are a high price to pay for refusing to understand and utilize the true science of climate change.


UPDATE 20090605a
Oh, found this interesting site, PolesApart.com which has discussions and counter discussions related to the above plus potent counters to those counters. Very interesting indeed. Most certainly “poles apart” in the scientific community.

Posted in Climate Science, Complex Systems, Debunking Bad Environmentalism, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ignorance to Knowledge, Philosophy, Politics, Reality Based Environmentalism, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, Something to think about, The Ground is Falling Up!, Video, WOW!!!, Yikes! The sky is NOT falling! | 83 Comments »

Path to Political Freedom from State Based Terrorists

Posted by pwl on May 20, 2009

Rise up and take back your State Based Terrorist Governments and hold your leaders responsible for their crimes against humanity.

Posted in Awesome, Awesome beyond awesome, Conspiracy Theory, Evil Walks the Earth and Carries a Big Stick, Exercise for the Reader (that's you), Get some perspective people, History, Holding those who run the world responsible for their crimes against humanity, Human|Ape, Humbled by Nature, Ideas Crazy Enough to Have a Chance, Ignorance to Knowledge, Intelligent Designer - Yeah Right, Invaders from Earth, Invisible Friend Crowd, It's a good thing that your god(s) die with you, My Invisible Friend Needs Me For His-Her-Its Existence, Philosophy, Politics, Proof God Can NOT Exist, Rational Thinking, Religion, Scams, Science Education, Science over Propaganada, SkyNet Battlefield Earth, Some Intelligent Designer, Something to think about, Terrorfying, The End is Nigh, The Sky Is Falling, To Hell With You Buddy, Total Control Over Our Lives, Video, Violent, WOW!!! | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: