AGW – One man’s science is another man’s pseudo-science! Part 2.

Posted on November 25, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

The ability of the atmosphere to capture and r...

Image via Wikipedia

We continue our educational excercise :

Part 2: Warming?

Snipped from an article entitled Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity. By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp Department of Applied Mathematics University of Washington, Seattle Washington

Let’s take a short glance at the equation at the left, because you’re never going to see anything like it again in this editorial.  To most of you, it is gobbly-gook, but to a physicist, it is part of a mathematical proof accompanying a particular study done on the sun’s role in Global Warming.  What the authors are explaining is they have found that the total solar irradiance (TSI) has been measured by orbiting satellites since 1978 and it varies on an 11-year cycle by about 0.07%.  So, from solar min to solar max, the TSI reaching the earth’s surface increases at a rate comparable to the radiative heating due to a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, and will probably add, during the next five to six years in the advancing phase of Solar Cycle 24, almost 0.2 °K to the globally-averaged temperature, thus doubling the amount of transient global warming expected from greenhouse warming alone.        Whew….

Don’t fret – neither Al Gore nor any of the Popular Journalists can understand it either.

We’ll try to reference most of the material, but if we miss a credit, or use a photograph someone didn’t want to share with the world (OK, we wonder why the photo was on the web if that were the case) we’ll quickly remove it with our apologies.  And let’s freely admit up front that what we offer here is a dissenting opinion, and surely we have “cherry-picked” the articles of others which are also contrary to the widely held current beliefs.  A bit of this is original on our part, but most of it comes from others around the globe.  We have tried to present work from what we believe to be credible, thoroughly diligent scientists actively engaged in current research.  Let’s get started:

  We’re reminded of an earlier story, which happened back in 1912. This was the amazing discovery of a skull and jawbone in which was quickly named the Piltdown Man and which all the world’s archaeologists immediately accepted as a hitherto unknown form of early human. It appears no one bothered to examine it closely, assuming that other scientists had thoroughly investigated and vetted it. The hoax wasn’t uncovered until 1953, when it was learned that the skull was that of a modern man and the jaw that of an orangutan. Seems no one had ever bothered to take a really close look at the artifact.

Well, folks, it does appear we have a new, 21st Century Piltdown Man, and this time we know his name.

He’s called “Anthropogenic Global Warming“

It’s hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first global exposure.  Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist ( one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growth ), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication.  In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous “hockey stick” chart, showing the earth’s temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century.  His interpretation was that man’s production of CO2  in the modern age was obviously responsible for the sudden increase.  It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.

Look carefully at the chart above, which is the famous “hockey stick” chart.  Note the horizontal scale is in years, stretching from the year 1000 to the near present time.  The vertical scale is in degrees Centigrade, and note carefully that it is graded in increments of 1/10 of a degree.  That means the wiggly blue section in the middle is actually only varying up and down by about a half of a degree.  The baseline, as noted, is set at the average of the recorded temperatures from 1961 to 1990.  Also note that only the red portion represents actual measured temperatures – the rest is based on the assumption that one can interpret past temperatures from examining ancient tree rings or ice core samples from centuries-old ice locked in glaciers.  This is, at best, a marriage of apples and oranges – the handle being somewhat of an educated guess, and the blade being based on actual measurements using thermometric recording devices.  Sort of like pairing the skull of a human with the jawbone of an orangutan.  And finally, note that the chart is for the northern hemisphere only.  This chart, unfortunately, became the foundation for the first report of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ), which in turn provided the summary information and recommendations to the world’s governments.  The Anthropogenic Global Warming panic was off to a rocketing start.

However, some folks noticed a couple of significant and fairly well accepted climatological history facts to be conspicuously missing.  The first was the well-documented “Medieval Warm Period” where temperatures, at least in Europe as mentioned in our introduction, were significantly higher.  The second was the “Little Ice Age”, a period in which the temperatures dropped so low the Thames River in London froze over.

How could this be an accurate record of the last millennium?

Let’s pause and mention that the data above is not “raw” data.  Dr. Mann actually used about 70-80 data sets, and in each set he applied a mathematical analysis known as a principle component analysis ( PCA ) which seeks to extract principal, or significant component information from a widely varying set of raw data.

Along comes Steve McIntyre, a Canadian analyst, who spends two years of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. Mann’s PCA program.  McIntyre subjects Mann’s PCA program to a “Monte Carlo” analysis – which inserts random data sets into the function – and discovered that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same.  The arm of the “hockey stick” ( paleo-record ) always came out straight.  In Dr. Mann’s case, the rising temperature of the Medieval Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been completely erased.  The hockey stick was broken.  Fini.  Kaput.  We may never know whether Mann’s work was deliberately contrived to fit some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical blunder.

McIntyre submitted his work to Nature Magazine – since they were responsible for publishing Mann’s flawed research without peer review in the first place, but they reportedly rejected it, saying it was “too long”.  He then shortened it to 500 words, and re-submitted it, but again it was rejected, this time saying it was “too mathematical” or words to that effect.  Heaven forbid any publication calling itself an “International Weekly Journal of Science” from actually publishing any science that hinged on mathematics.  Let’s all push a yard stick into the snow, measure the snow depth, call ourselves “climate scientists”, and get published in Nature.  In the end, McIntyre turned to the internet and its true freedom of the press, and today he is known to every serious climate scientist on the planet as the man who broke the hockey stick.

The National Academy of Sciences has found Mann’s graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless.  Note the corrected version, below, in which neither today’s temperatures nor the rate of warming are particularly unusual compared to the historical record.  Thus, even the “global warming” of the 20th century was not even remotely a cause for the slightest alarm.  It was all “much to do about nothing”.

The Medieval Warm Period, of which the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming don’t want you to be aware, was a period in which agriculture flourished, helping Europe emerge from the Dark Ages.

The Little Ice Age produced crop failures from too-short growing seasons leading to widespread hunger and even starvation in some more northern locales.

Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age, agriculture has again flourished, and most of us hope it lasts quite a while longer.  This is certainly no cause for panic, and a few of us think being comfortably warm and having plenty to eat is actually good.

And Tom Nelson has a few more graphs the AGW folks don’t want you to see posted HERE.

Continued at ‘Primer 3: CO2′, again, or if you’re patient, wait for Part 3 on this series of posts.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

AGW – One man’s science is another man’s pseudo-science! Part 1.

Posted on November 24, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

History of sunspot number observations showing...

Image via Wikipedia

Part 1 – Introduction.

Still the debate rages. Very few protagonists change their views, regardless of the evidence.

An effective summary would take several pages, but the way I see the  global warming scenario is simply that “climate science” cannot seriously be called “settled.” Therefore, neither are any of the conclusions, nor proposed solutions, based on “settled science”. Therefore it is scientifically, politically and morally incorrect to pursue the current path of Carbon constraints, trading and taxes.

Meaning what? There needs to be more scientific evidence that is acceptable to one “side” or the other.

The only new evidence that might convince the warmists that they have missed the point seems to be the continued trend of global temperature to depart from the IPCC predicted graphs. This trend even after efforts to exaggerate it, cannot compete with Natures climate drivers and cycles. (Even then they will probably offer some reason to explain their science being wrong yet their solution still being right).

Conversely, the “deniers” (excuse this word but it is fairly apt – deniers of AGW claims, not of truths), would need two main considerations to change – firstly, an actual convincing measurable rate of more than incrementally increasing global temperature, one that was seen to be genuine and not concocted by temperature selectivities, – secondly, acceptable scientific proof that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were the major cause and proposed solutions were effective and humane.

Already changes in titles (to “Climate Change” for example, a meaningless term adopted absurdly to imply “man-made weather pattern changes of serious danger to civilization”), and responses, show the warmist adaptability to change, but not to scientific responsibility. An adaptability that is characteristic of mankind in general and one which would, in all probability, cope with most weather conditions thrust upon us by “Nature”.

The settling on “Carbon Dioxide” as an/the enemy is ludicrous and points to the fallibility of the warmist agenda.

There are two main reasons why I soon changed to a “denier”.

I became aware of the political agenda of organizations including the UN to create mechanisms for controlling governments and countries based on the premise that the climate was a danger and could be controlled by political manouvres.  This is all covered extensively in Chapter 1 of this blog’s page “Carbon Attack”, titled “Motivations” ref https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/motivation/. (Skip to the section headed “Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” for relevance to this post).

Interestingly, the climate trend was initially cooling and that was to be the “scare”. This obviously had to be changed to warming. It now seems possible, if not likely, that cooling is back, but that would not suit the AGW team.

The second reason is that there are two distinct scientific explanations of global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. One, that the sensitivity is slight and not a cause for concern.  Two, that it is significant and of great concern.

I found that the first explanation made ample logical and scientific sense to my technically-trained thought processes. Not so for the second. The convincing information was found in the submission of “The Middlebury Community Network”, featured in the pages titled “An Educational Primer”, commencing at Primer 1 – https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/an-educational-primer/.  Acknowledgements to James A. Peden, for “Anthropogenic Global Warming“.

This is reproduced here for coherence and as a deserving post.

“Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Editor’s Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum.  Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period“, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today.  Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent.  Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”.

However, “Global Warming” in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we’re hearing far too often that the “science” is “settled”, and that it is mankind’s contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing “Greenhouse Effect“, which is the root “cause” of global warming.  We’re also hearing that “all the world’s scientists now agree on this settled science”, and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe.  And last, but not least, we’re seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing.  Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest.  Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

Sorry folks, but we’re not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy.  The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science.  We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as “Climate Science” was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.

So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science.  Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit.  This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences.  In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding – like most folks read comic books.

As our own knowledge of “climate science” grew, so grew our doubts over the “settled science”.  What we found was the science was far from “settled”.. in fact it was barely underway.

It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with “all the world’s scientists” apparently having no doubt.  Finally, in December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue.  Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another “pro-global-warming” feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear.  Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers.  We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time.  Serious science doesn’t matter if you have the press in your pocket.

In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was “settled science”.  And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally.  They’re all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn’t go in their publication.  They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that’s what freedom of the press is all about.  Seems everyone, both left and right, does it – and it’s almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here.  And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it.  We humans aren’t all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that’s a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.

But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return. (We’re in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle).  One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a “debate” with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original article.  This we politely declined, arguing that “debate” cannot prove or disprove science…science must stand on its own.

But then something unusual happened.  On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters.  The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

At last, we were not alone…

We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet – but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion.  Knowing that most folks aren’t geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we’re going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along.  Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale.  The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well.  Smart folks learn faster than most.

What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned out to be an unreasonably long period of time.  We’ll be first examining a “worst case” scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a ballpark that will tell us if we need to go further and pull out long strings of complicated equations, which we don’t want to have to resort to because we’re writing for the average layman who is not a rocket scientist.  This is a valid scientific method despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don’t have to spend a lot of time calculating how likely he is to crash while riding it.  Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to understand was a daunting task.  Below (following), is an example of what “real” Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis.  Is it any wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?”

Continued at ‘Primer 2′  “Warming”, or, if you are patient will be posted as Part 2 of this article.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Does green tea have caffeine? Seven things you need to know

Posted on November 24, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Green tea leaves steeping in an uncovered zhon...

Image via Wikipedia

A post from ‘Natural News‘ provides good information on one of the simpler ways to improve one’s health.

NaturalNews) If you want to completely eliminate caffeine from your diet, you will have to add green tea to your list of forbidden foods. However, if you merely want to reduce your caffeine intake, you may want to substitute green tea for coffee as your morning pick-me-up beverage. Consider these facts about green tea:
1. As long as the number of cups you drink remains the same, replacing your morning coffee with a cup of green tea will reduce your caffeine intake by about 70%. One cup of coffee contains 100-150mg of caffeine; a cup of green tea has only about 25mg of caffeine. However, there are many variables affecting these numbers. For example, the caffeine content of different types of green tea can vary; also a longer brewing period can result in more strongly caffeinated tea.
2. Green tea contains two other stimulants in addition to caffeine. These substances, theobromine and theophylline, may affect heart rate and the central nervous system in a way somewhat similar to caffeine. These substances are also found in chocolate.
3. The combined stimulant effects of caffeine, theobromine and theophylline in green tea may be balanced by another substance in the tea, the amino acid L-Theanine which simultaneously calms the nervous system and enhances concentration abilities.
4.Take some time to consider your reasons for wanting to eliminate caffeine from your diet. If you experience negative effects such as anxiety, irritability or insomnia after drinking coffee, consider whether these might be related to the number of cups you drink per day, the time of day when you consume coffee, and what you add to your coffee to sweeten it. You may want to try cutting down on the number of cups you drink per day, switching to another beverage after early afternoon and/or cutting down on the sugar you add to your coffee. There is increasing evidence that caffeine is not as much of a dietary culprit as experts previously thought. For example, some studies indicate caffeine intake may have a protective effect against Parkinson’s disease as well as liver and colorectal cancers.
5. If you feel certain that the caffeine in coffee is having a negative effect on your health, or if your health goals include weight loss or better dental health, you may want to switch from coffee to green tea, either entirely or midway through the day. Green tea boosts metabolism, helping the body burn fat more efficiently. Unlike coffee, which gives people bad breath, green tea has a natural antibiotic effect, killing bacteria in the mouth, which not only combats bad breath but can contribute to better dental check-ups. Also, green tea can help protect against heart disease.
6. As with any foods, careful selection of the most natural product helps you receive more of the potential health benefits. Most prepared teas in cans or bottles are pre-sweetened, often with high fructose corn syrup. Also, Japanese green tea leaves are often treated with fluoride. Try to select tea bags or loose tea leaves which are not chemically treated. How you prepare the tea can also have an effect: many health experts believe boiling water destroys the flavonoids in green tea which give it its healing potency. You may want to heat the water without bringing it to a full boil to preserve the positive effects of green tea.
7. If you want to receive the healing benefits of green tea without any caffeine, you can purchase decaffeinated tea. Green tea which is labeled as “naturally decaffeinated” has been treated with the chemical solvent ethyl acetate. A healthier choice is green tea where the caffeine has been removed through a process of “effervescence” using carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034227_green_tea_caffeine.html#ixzz1eZfv6ch1
Including his source links.
Related articles
Posted in HEALTH, natural | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

AGW – Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This is the title of WUWT‘s latest post on the CO2/Carbon Trading/Global Warming issue, an issue that I label as a fraudulent, politically-motivated scam.

More emails expose the IPCC scientists’ struggle to maintain a credible science basis in order to “help the cause”. We know that their “cause” is to support the IPCC’s political drive for world government control, but their platform is increasingly tending to lean precariously.

Enough said! Read the article here.

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order, World Issues | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

JP Gov officially admitted that Japanese food is harmful

Posted on November 23, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

A Traditional breakfast at Tamahan Ryokan, Kyo...

Image via Wikipedia

Alarmist?  TRUTH? Reality?

Why would this report not be true? If it is true, why should it not be published?

If not true, Please would someone of authority point out exactly what is incorrect about this story!

Fukushima Diaries presents this post in good faith, it is included here also in good faith. Why deny that dangers are real, or pretend they don’t exist?

The public get no benefit if they are in danger without that knowledge. If they are denied the opportunity to make appropriate decisions it is morally wrong.

The only gain in hiding the truth is for the perpetrators of the disaster to avoid public wrath. Where is the moral justice in that?

Since 311, every time it turned out a kind of food is contaminated, they made “safety” limit, such as 500 Bq/Kg for vegetables, and allowed them to distribute.

However, at today’s meeting of the Lower House Budget Committee, Edano former chief cabinet secretary, current minister of Economy, Trade and Industry admitted that it is harmful for your health if you keep having it for one year.

Edano former chief cabinet secretary is famous for his trade mark phrase, “In short term,it is not harmful”. He was even called “Short term fraud” by some people.

It is not a small number of people who trusted his word and didn’t evacuate or kept eating food under the “safety limit”.

At today’s meeting of the Lower House Budget Committee, he “explained”.

He held 39 press conferences in the first 2 weeks after 311.

BUT he said “In short term, it is not harmful” ONLY 7 times.

OF those, 5 “In short term, it is not harmful”s were for food and drink.

By this he “meant”, you will be sick if you keep having it for one year, but if you have it once or twice, it doesn’t hurt your body.

2 “In short term, it is not harmful”s were for the north west area of Fukushima plant, which was severely contaminated right after the explosions.

It therefore means, those people who stayed there for long time shall be damaged by radiation.

In conclusion, as Japanese government admitted, if you keep having food from Japan for one year, probably you will be sick.

If it’s only once or twice, you may be ok.

People who abandoned their own sense of judgement, and trusted the government blindly, great job. Good bye.

Further: (my interpretation)

Otsuka Norikazu, a TV news caster was a good Japanese. He devoted himself for the national campaign of “Let’s support north Japan by eating their food.”

He was sent to the hospital for acute lymphatic leukemia on 11/7/2011.

In the morning, he touched his neck and felt something strange. He went to the doctor.

The doctor diagnosed him to be acute lymphatic leukemia.

It is not clear the connection between his patriotic challenge and acute lymphatic leukemia. It will never be clear.

His TV show was named “Wake up TV”. He actually woke up some Japanese at the end of his career.

Mochizuki’s post is linked here.

Posted in Cover-ups, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Justice, nuclear, radiation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AGW – IPCC, Does it Mislead the Public?

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Norsk (riksmål/bokmål): Nobels fredspris-vinne...

Image via Wikipedia

In commenting on another blog, pushing the ‘barrow’ for truth and commonsense in relation to the AGW scam, I was asked had I written any articles on the IPCC? (International Panel on Climate Change)

My eventual response was to offer a link to Chapter 5 of this site’s ‘Carbon Attack’ pages. It needs a lot of work to make it a presentable page but too many other issues get higher priority.

In fact, I haven’t levelled any direct criticism at the IPCC via a specific post.

They are actively and, so far, successsfully pushing their ‘barrow’, influencing the world with their unsound, (unsettled) science, driven by political and financial motivations, creating propaganda and extensively funding, directly and indirectly, their supporters.

As a result, many of the world’s governments, (unfortunately including Australia’s), are proceeding headlong into disastrous social and financial manouvres destined to be failures, the world’s general population being the worse off by far.

So far, this is only my opinion, of course. (But also that of thousands of other bloggers). There is evidence aplenty within the above-mentioned pages of this blog.

Also in this article, titled “WWF Influence at the Highest Levels of the IPCC”, published by the website “No Frakking Concensus”, a specialist in IPCC critiques, citing:  (WWF = World Wildlife Fund)

The 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is 3,000 pages long. Since most people will never wade through a document of that length, the IPCC has prepared a handy summary-of-summaries called the Synthesis Report.

The final, specific wording of that document was hammered out via a political negotiation involving bureaucrats, politicians, and diplomats. But the draft document from which those people based their discussions was authored by a select group of 40 IPCC personnel known as the “core writing team.”

The IPCC says there were 450 lead authors, plus 800 contributing authors for its 2007 report (which is often referred to as AR4 – for Assessment Report #4). This makes a grand total of 1,250 participants. Of those a mere 40 individuals were elevated to core writing team status.

In other words, for every person who landed a spot on that team an additional 30 IPCC participants were not selected.

One would therefore expect that these chosen few would be of the highest calibre: Top-notch, reputable scientists. Highly experienced professionals. Individuals known for their impeccable judgment. Those whose objectivity is beyond dispute.

Alas, that would be in some parallel universe in which the IPCC thinks that public perception matters. In our world, the 40 crème de la crème individuals break down as follows:

  • 6 of them were IPCC employees at the time – Peter Bosch, Renate Christ, Jian Liu, Martin Manning, Jean Palutikof and Andy Reisinger
  • 1 was an American lawyer (Lenny Bernstein) and another was a medical doctor with a thin publication record who is employed by the World Health Organization (Bettina Menne)

That leaves us with 32 people who might be considered world-class scientists. But among those are:

So of the 32 members of the IPCC’s core writing team that we might have expected to be world-class scientists, 11 of them (34%) are publicly affiliated with environmental NGOs.

And we’re really supposed to believe that the IPCC is a scientific organization writing purely scientific reports.

There are always, or usually, two sides to a story. I believe there is enough evidence to support all the criticism that is levelled at the IPCC and that it wil go down in history as the perpetrator of one of the world’s biggest hoaxes.

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alert: News Blackout America Becoming Radioactive

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Internationally recognized symbol.

Image via Wikipedia

An alarmist title? Yes!

Is it justified? I guess only time will tell.

If it’s true that US monitoring is being restricted, also reported to have happened in Canada, the inference is that dangers exist and are being covered up!

Yesterday I was reading a complete whitewash of radiation dangers resulting from the Fukushima NPP devestation:

Reference ‘Junk Science‘ blog article – http://junkscience.com/2011/11/17/after-all-the-panic-and-dire-nuclear-warnings-about-fukushima/#more-5875

They found just 10 people with unusually high levels of radiation, but those levels were still below the threshold at which acute radiation syndrome sets in and destroys the gastrointestinal tract. Geiger-counter readings categorised all others in the area at a “no contamination level”.

Radiation levels in Fukushima are lower than predicted – The fallout from the radiation leak at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor in Japan may be less severe than predicted.

… How did the population of Fukushima prefecture dodge the radioactivity? Gerry Thomas at Imperial College London, director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, says the answer is simple. “Not an awful lot [of radioactive material] got out of the plant – it was not Chernobyl.” The Chernobyl nuclear disaster released 10 times as much radiation as Fukushima Daiichi. (New Scientist)

My attempted comments to debate this were not published. Extremely disappointing as it is a site I respect for its good debunking of the AGW “science”.

So here is my opportunity to swing the pendulum the other way. Probably too far, but this is a debate where the actual truths are far from clear. My interpretation is probably far more accurate than that of the Junk Science article.

Here are some extracts from the ‘PakAlert’ article titled as above.

The mainstream media and federal government are conspiring to black out the escalating nuclear disasters in Japan and how radiation’s affecting  America.

UPDATE NOV. 19, 2011: RADIOACTIVE L.A. AIR 300% OVER NORMAL BACKGROUND — VIDEO

Radiation levels are increasing across North America

Chances are you’ve eaten radioactive food and didn’t even know it. Most people aren’t aware that radiation is contaminating America’s food supply right now.

The source for radioactive food? The TEPCO nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan.

Scrumptious Fukushima contaminated food—eat it today and tomorrow it’s sayonara

The food supply is becoming contaminated by Japanese radiation and the U.S. government—and much of the mainstream media—is studiously ignoring the massive health problem that one nuclear expert claims is 70 times worse than the Ukraine nuclear disaster at Chernobyl.

More U.S. states find traces of radiation from Japan

CNN reports that radiation in America’s food chain is continuing to rise. Sporadic reports of what’s actually happening break through the media static periodically, but America is at risk of radiation poisoning and the mainstream media is focusing primarily on celebrities and the bickering among politicians.

[Note: For actual reports of the serious problem the U.S. is facing monitor the UK press, websites from Japan, South Korea, China and India. You can find them with a Google search.]

Media puts on a happy (glowing) face about radiation

After shutting down radiation monitoring stations across the U.S. as “unnecessary” the government and EPA officials continue to lull the American public into a state of soothing catatonic blindness: (My emphasis)

“Our finding is consistent with findings in Washington and California. We have expected to find trace amounts of the isotopes released from the Japanese plant. There is no health risk,” Gail Shibley, administrator of Oregon’s Office of Environmental Public Health, Oregon Public Health Division, said in a statement. [CNN]

Yet the official statements fly in the face of the data that the nuclear scientists at UCB and other nuclear scientists in Western Europe have been obtaining from air, water, soil, and produce samples.

So now readers have some balanced reports from which to make their assessments.  Keep reading widely and don’t rely on the mainstream media!

(Thanks to TIP for alert).

PalAlert article can be read here.

Related articles
Posted in Cover-ups, ENVIRONMENT, FOODS, HEALTH, Human Behaviour, nuclear, radiation, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Humour – Laughing is good for your Health!

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Teddy bear - Rory

Image via Wikipedia

Sorry about this but I got to get it off my chest.

“A teddy bear is working on a building site.  He goes for a tea break and when he returns he notices his pick has been stolen.  The bear is angry and reports the theft to the foreman.  The foreman grins at the bear and says,

 “Oh, I forgot to tell you, today’s the day the teddy bears have their pick nicked.”

[Well, I think it’s funny!]

Posted in HEALTH, Humour | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Only a totalitarian New World Order can save us now says Naomi Klein

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

This post by James Delingpole, is copied here for a couple of reasons.

Naomi Klein

Image via Wikipedia

The representation of the AGW case by the presenter, Naomi Klein, is ridiculously unsupportable and valueless, as James suggests, yet it is being used to prop up the need for a solution of gigantic social consequences.

This proposed New World Order solution has long been one of the threads of my posts and dissertations on the AGW scam. In fact, this particular motivation for the AGW scam initiated my interest in the AGW debate.

At one time I too was ridiculing Andrew Bolt, saying “of course global warming is occurring and is a problem, I can feel the sun is hotter, I can see the ice shelves calving”. Now having read extensively a great deal of information, I believe that I understand the real situation and fully support the debate against the AGW ‘industry’.

My related contribution is featured in this site’s “Motivations” page, (‘Carbon Attack’), where the third section of text reads:

““Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.”

The full story then follows, see “https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/motivation/“.

This NWO motivation for creating the AGW agenda, has not been stressed too much in this blog because many believe it to be a ‘crackpot’ theory. But, as one of many reasons for doubting the IPCC claims, it is a meaningful piece of the overall picture puzzle that explains the sometimes inexplicable goings on by the ‘warmist’ fraternity.

The NWO theme is, however, now becoming more into the open, as shown by the Naomi Klein presentation. This is not a single person making a suggestion. She represents a movement and is promoting the NWO scheme on their behalf. It is good to have some substance to give credibility to my posts.

Here’s what James has to say:

No Logo author Naomi Klein has a solution to climate change and it goes like this: punitive taxation; massive wealth re-distribution; the abolition of free trade and free markets; a state-enforced end to to the “cult of shopping”; the whole to be supervised by a New World Order of selfless illuminati (who presumably resemble Naomi Klein).

If it weren’t so scary it would almost be funny, the way the leftie Canadian activist on the basis of no evidence whatsoever declares that the time has come to strip the human race of all its hard-won freedoms in order to save the planet from a non-existent problem. Unfortunately, Klein means it and her audience takes her seriously. Just read the first comment below her screed:

I can’t say enough good things about this article. It’s a manifesto for the next 100 years. Corporate capitalism is doomed by the immutable fact of finite resources; it will require planning and sharing to sustain civilization in the future, which is heretical thinking in the boardrooms of elite capitalists.

O-K. And the rationale for doing all this stuff would be what, exactly, Naomi? Some new devastating proof you’ve managed to unearth, perhaps, showing once and for all that the measurements are wrong and global warming didn’t stop in 1998? A dazzling refutation of Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory? Surprising new data showing that, contrary to the false consciousness promoted by the running dog lackey capitalist pigs who write our history books, totalitarian planning regimes of the kind you advocate in fact brought nothing but bounty, happiness and environmental loveliness to Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Kim Il Sung’s North Korea?

Nope. All Naomi can manage by way of justification is this:

Before I go any further, let me be absolutely clear: as 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists attest, the Heartlanders are completely wrong about the science. The heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels are already causing temperatures to increase. If we are not on a radically different energy path by the end of this decade, we are in for a world of pain.

Er, Naomi. Here are some things you should know before you type out your next eco-fascistic horror rant. 1. That “97 per cent” figure: it’s kind of an urban myth. 2. The heat-trapping gas and fossil fuel theory: it’s at best moot, not least because the “feedbacks” – as you’d know if you’d bothered to do a scintilla of research – are still so ill-understood.  3. the “radically different energy path” bit: Says who? And on what evidence? 4. “a world of pain”. Right. And you’ll have done a cost benefit analysis here will you? You can show us that the freedom-destroying, economy-ruining totalitarianism you advocate will a) make the blindest bit of difference to global mean temperatures and b) cause less pain than a world where it’s ever so slightly warmer and where people are free to shop without jackbooted Canadian eco-activists stamping up and down shrieking: “Das ist Verboten!”?

I don’t think so.

You are right James, the NWO idea would do nothing, or next to nothing, for global temperature modification. They know that and are just using it as, what is turning out to be a pathetic excuse, to develop a world-wide financial and social restructuring to suit the bankers and the elite. And so many people are being taken for a ride on the strength of the pathetic excuse. However, more and more warmist scientists are beginning to soften their attitudes.

The NWO subject, is itself an issue requiring huge coverage. Although it is one of my pet injustice topics, more relevant reader-friendly issues are taking precedence. Much evidence exists to support my beliefs.

James source article is linked here.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, Conspiracies, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

War Crimes Tribunal – Blair and GW Bush

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Scenery around KLCC park at night

Image via Wikipedia

Pinch me in case I am dreaming!

Well, actually it is only symbolic, but a lot of trouble has been gone to. For very good reasons. Maybe it will be useful in publicising the truth of the warmongers lies and atrocities. Maybe the public will become more aware of who are the war criminals and who are not.

It is hoped that the transcripts and judgements are published.

This post from Global Research:-

Streaming Video: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal; BREAKING: The Trial of George W. Bush and Tony Blair: Sparks Fly at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

1-war-crimes-tribunal-starts-against-bush-and-blair-kuala-lumpur_931346
Chief Judge, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

Streaming Video: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal –

The following URL will stream video of each session of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal within 1-2 hours after the specific session has ended. To access this streaming video please go to:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/war-is-a-crime-exhibition

Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal
Schedule of Sessions
Saturday Nov. 19, 2011   9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;   
Sunday Nov. 20, 2011     9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;
Monday Nov. 21, 2011    9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;
Tuesday Nov. 22, 2011   9AM – 5 PM Kuala Lumpur time;

CONVERT TO YOUR TIME ZONE:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

Sessions of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal will also be online on You Tube.

Source: Acknowledgements to ‘Global Research’, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27765

Related articles
Posted in Justice, War Crimes, World Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment