AGW – The Lack of Recent Warming and the State of Peer Review

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Cato Institute

Image via Wikipedia

The Current Wisdom: The Lack of Recent Warming and the State of Peer Review: by Patrick J. Michaels.  Patrick J. Michaels is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

An up-to-date look at the current global temperature trend.

Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and colleagues recently published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examining the causes of the recent dearth of “global warming.” They concluded that it’s simply natural variability, augmented by increasing sulfate emissions from dramatically growing coal consumption by China.

Of course, it is the latter conclusion that has drawn all the attention, for it allows the possibility that greenhouse gases are continuing to impart an as-expected warming influence on the global climate. And then once China gets its air pollution under control (and we are talking about true air pollution here, i.e., not carbon dioxide), global temperatures will rise rapidly. Thus the dream of alarming climate change lives.

If China’s sulfate emissions are not having much of an impact of global temperatures, then, the dearth of warming in recent years supports the hypothesis — now made by many (unpopular) folks in the climate business — that the “sensitivity” of temperature to carbon dioxide has been guessed (we choose our words carefully here) to be too high by climate modelers. In this scenario, we wake up from the alarmist nightmare and resume our normal lives.

Patrick J. Michaels is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

There are two reasons why we think it is wrong for Kaufmann et al. to attribute a reduced rate of global warming to Chinese sulfates:

1) China’s cooling sulfates do not readily make their way into the Southern Hemisphere, yet, from 1999-2010, temperatures actually fell there, while they rose in the Northern Hemisphere. This is exactly the opposite of what should have happened if sulfates are exerting a relative cooling primarily in the Northern Hemisphere

2) Chinese coal consumption increased in 2009 and 2010 (in fact, 2010 had the biggest year-over-year increase recorded) — yet, the global temperature rose sharply in 2009 and in 2010. Because Kaufmann’s climate model responds instantaneously to sulfates (as opposed to a decades-long lag to adjust to carbon dioxide changes) this is contrary to his hypothesis.

Let’s look at the first one.

The link below shows the march of weather systems around the globe for several months. Notice that the weather systems passing through China quickly move into the north Pacific Ocean, and don’t mix into the Southern Hemisphere. Since sulfates only have an atmospheric lifetime of about a week or so, they are hard pressed to cause any cooling impact beyond the areas to the immediate east of China.

(Video available in original article.)

So, if a dramatic increase in Chinese sulfur emissions during the past decade or so has been responsible for the observed slowdown in the rate of global temperature increase, then the Northern Hemisphere should be doing most of the work — that is, the rate of warming in the Northern Hemisphere should have slowed by much more than the rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere. This situation is easy to check.

Figure 1 shows the Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperature history from 1980 through 2010 according to the surface temperature data set compiled and maintained by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. During the period of time during which Chinese sulfate emissions rose (1998-2010), the warming in the Southern Hemisphere went negative (i.e. became a cooling) while the Northern Hemisphere warmed. From Figure 1 it is obvious that the Southern Hemisphere is driving the global temperature slowdown, not the Northern — a result completely contrary to Kaufmann et al.‘s Chinese sulfate hypothesis.

Now let’s turn to our Reason #2. Simply put, during the past 2 years (which were not part of the Kaufmann et al. dataset), global temperatures rose as did Chinese coal consumption. According to Kaufmann et al.‘s hypothesis, the increase in Chinese coal consumption should act to drive down the rate of global temperature rise, but that is not what happened. Again, temperatures are behaving in an opposite fashion, compared to what the hypothesis predicts.

The top panel in Figure 2 shows Chinese coal consumption from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy from 1998 through 2010. Notice that it increased substantially in both 2009 and 2010 — two years not included in the Kaufmann et al. analysis. The year-over-year increase from 2009 to 2010 was the highest annual increase on record. If Chinese coal consumption were having a large impact on global temperature, we would expect that global temperatures would remain suppressed in 2009 and 2010. But the bottom panel in Figure 2 shows what really happened — global temperatures rose in both 2009 and 2010, contrary to the Kaufmann et al. hypothesis.

It is clear that natural variability, not sulfate emissions, is the cause of the lack of recent warming. We arrived at this very same conclusion several years ago, however, despite repeated attempts, we were unable to find a journal even interested in considering our work for publication.

Continue reading here.

 In the continuation, you will get some idea about the peer-reviewing system, on which the AGW authors and scientists base their proof of ‘good’ science. Meanwhile the publishing companies reject any material not compatible with the AGW agenda. e.g.

Our experience with the peer-review process was a nightmare that eerily resembles what University of Guelph’s Ross McKitrick describes in his chapter “Bias in the Peer-Review Process,” in my new book, Climate Coup.

We started with the American Geophysical Union‘s (AGU) publication EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. After sitting on the paper for several months (which included getting a review or two), the EOS editors told us that we had too much “new” science in our piece and that EOS was more of a news publication and that they’d be happy to consider publishing a description of our work after it was published elsewhere:

Mind you, the published global temperatures for June and July 2011 show a slight degree of warming trend. Still too short-term to be a big deal but it keeps us from getting complacent.  There are so  many variables, including human measurement and computation methods and assessments, what we can base our beliefs on at the moment are somewhat nebulous.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Nature | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

AGW – I’m still having doubts!

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Year-over-year increase of atmospheric CO 2

Image via Wikipedia

“The greenhouse effect of CO2 is beyond question – a simply(sic) test using a thermal camera, an IR emitter and a chamber in which you can change the CO2 concentration can illustrate this to be a fact. Likewise, we know for a fact that the increase in CO2 concentration is the result of our industrial activity as fossil sourced carbon has a different signature due to being isolated for millions of years. Also, the chemistry behind ocean acidification is equally understood. We also know that over the past 30yrs – the bulk of which have been the warmest on record – solar activity hasn’t matched the global temperature anomaly at all.

These things we know for a fact.

As for the associated warming, no qualified scientist rejects the one degree warming solely related to a doubling of CO2 concentrations – even the hyped up Lindzen. .”

The above is part of a reader comment on my post “Questioning the “Science” that the AGW promoters promote‘”  [Whole comment by Moth available on that post]

I had written, in brief: “So the question must be asked, “is the science of the IPCC-based conclusions reliable, unbiased, exact, beyond question, falsifiable (whatever that means), irrefutable and dependable”?”

Thus we have a debate which might be more appropriately published as a new post to give it due respect.

“The greenhouse effect of CO2 is beyond question”! This I cannot accept on face value and will go into a lot of detail to show why. ‘A’ greenhouse effect, maybe, but ‘the’ greenhouse effect, definitely not! Why?, because this statement is being used to justify world-wide financial and social upheaval on the basis that atmospheric CO2 increases are causing destructive global warming. The intended clarification of “a doubling of CO2 relating to a 1 degC warming not being rejected by any ‘qualified scientist’ also requires a challenge.  There is reason to suspect that the continuing rise in CO2 emissions is not being accompanied by a corresponding rise in global temperature.

What I believe to be scientific fact, and/or believed by respective and respected, qualified scientists, is as follows:

Atmospheric gasses:

1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is roughly 390 ppm = 0.039 % of total atmospheric gasses.

2. Balance of atmosphere, if humidity zero, Nitrogen approx 80%, Oxygen approx 20%.

3. Minute amounts of other gasses, some of them also greenhouse active, we will come to later.

4. Added to this mix is water vapour H2O, varying widely in concentration on a daily basis.

5. If we add clouds to this, the H2O is assumed to be in the droplet form, separately assessed from greenhouse effects, but of major importance.

Greenhouse gasses: (recent, and approx) [important, but excluding H20]

Carbon Dioxide,  CO2,  390 ppm,  390,000 ppb;   %of total 99.46

Methane,  CH4,   1800 ppb;   0.46%

Nitrous Oxide,  N2O,   320 ppb;   0.08%

TOTAL:    392,120 ppb

Miscellaneous (CFC’s etc) < 50 ppt and for the sake of this discussion can be ignored.

(ppm = parts per million, ppb = parts per billion, ppt = parts per trillion.)

A hugely dominating proportion of these GHG’s is thus CO2. However their effect on planetary warming is a function of their heat retention, each gas has a multiplying factor to enable their heat retention values to be correctly compared.

CO2, (reference) 1.0, has warming effect 1.0 x 390,000 = 390,000; % warming 74.167

CH4, factor 21;   21 x 1,745 = 36,645;  6.968%

N2O, factor 310;  310 x 320 = 99,200;  18.865%

Total,   525,845;  100%

So, if the known, accepted green house gasses above were on their own, they would provide warming and re-radiation amounts in the relative % proportions shown. The warming and its radiation would emanate in all directions, a certain percentage back to the surface, if warmer than the surface.

CO2 on its own is thus the most significant GHG, to the extent that it is judged here to be about 75% of all GHG’s , neglecting for the moment H2O.

Next we need to look at the GHG levels in the atmosphere. As mentioned above the atmosphere consists basically of nitrogen and oxygen, again neglecting water vapour, to the tune of say 99%, CO2 has the esteemed level of roughly 0.04%.

The CO2 amount is such that the total IR radiation from the earth’s lower altitudes will be only minutely absorbed compared to that which simply passes through and escapes from the atmosphere. Not only that but the CO2 is only effective in absorbing IR radiation at a few small wavelength bands and thus its absorption level is reduced to between 5 and 8%.

Thus, let’s say 10% of the CO2 level of 0.04% of its volume in the atmosphere is effective as a GHG. So at this stage CO2 is trapping 0.004% of the total upward radiation and re-radiating it back to either create warming or to counter some of the upward radiation.

Next we look at H2O which can be at levels up to 80%, but maybe only 20% at the altitudes where the important gas mixing and GH effect is taking place. It is a strong GHG making the total GHG level now at least 20% with CO2 now becoming a proportion of about 5 x 0.004% = 0.02%.  of the total GHGs, (maximum).

Mankind’s contribution to this CO2 warming effectiveness is taken to be 100ppm  of the 400 = 25% and if doubled, will be 40% of the resulting 500ppm. Even if they are talking about doubling the total CO2 to 800ppm, the contribution to GHG warming is still only 0.04%, at worst, because H2O levels can be much higher. This is the theoretical warming factor.

After all that, when any warming occurs, evaporation from the water at the planet’s surface increases creating increased clouding. This messes up the whole scenario completely as clouds block the original UV heating but do create some GH warming effect at night (ie., reduced loss of heat). Precipitation and further cooling of the earth results. A net negative feedback situation, modifying the scientists’ excessive claims.

Many other factors are relevant to the issue of mankind’s contributions to, and ability to, control planet climate. But it would be surprising if 0.04% contribution to planet warming was a real issue. 0.04% of our temperature in absolute terms (273 + 20 = 293) is still only 0.109 degK.

If a real-life experiment could be set up as suggested, with controlled amounts of CO2 and H2O in air, with known surface simulation, and free of the closed circuit effect of a container, it would be a valuable improvement over what at the moment seems to be ‘computed science’.

I suggest that what are accepted as known facts by the AGW proponents are not universally accepted. Until some real-life experiment proves the claimed relationships, reliance on models which are only man-made assumptions should be judged as such, and not taken to be reliable factual evidence.

To say that pro-AGW scientists are qualified and others are not, is illogical. Reliance on so-called peer review as a measure of scientific validity is demonstrably inadequate. An example that shows it may be of little value – The commenter cites a reference “Knutti and Hegerl (2008)“.  Figure 3a shows a diagram labelling 3 levels – ‘most likeley’, ‘very likely’ and ‘likely’, which are labelled in the wrong places.  A minor point but it is not difficult to find other issues deserving criticism.

To indicate how the pro-AGW scientists deal with H20 vapour as a GHG, read and wonder about the following:

“Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2. Changes in the water vapour may also have indirect effects via cloud formation. Most scientists agree that the overall effect of the direct and indirect feedbacks caused by increased water vapour content of the atmosphere significantly enhances the initial warming that caused the increase – that is, it is a strong positive feedback.( [5], see B7). Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: IPCC TAR chapter lead author ( Michael Mann) considers citing “the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas” to be “extremely misleading” as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]; see also [7] and [8].”

The IPCC discuss the water vapor feedback [9].

“It is not really possible to assert that such-and-such a gas causes a certain percentage of the GHE, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. The 1990 IPCC report says “If H2O were the only GHG present, then the GHE of a clear-sky midlatitude atmosphere… would be about 60-70% of the value with all gases included; by contrast, if CO2 alone was present, the corresponding value would be about 25%”.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Nature | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

AGW – Urban Heat Island Effect Significant in China

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

A depiction of the varying degree of the urban...

Image via Wikipedia

Besides the issues of how much global warming might be attributed to CO2 levels, there is the question of how accurately the average global temperature is measured and computed, and how meaningful it is.

Portion of the near surface temperature warming is undoubtedly due to UHI from various man-related sources.  The amount of UH that finds its way into official temperature trends has always been in dispute. The effect of this additional heat radiation into the atmosphere may have been estimated but I haven’t noticed any published data or mention of it.

Part of the Abstract is copied here:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D14113, 12 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JD015452

Observed surface warming induced by urbanization in east China

Observed surface warming induced by urbanization in east China
Key Points

  • The rapid urbanization has significant impacts on temperature over east China
  • A new method was developed to dynamically classify urban and rural stations
  • Comparison of the trends of UHI effects by using OMR and UMR approaches

Xuchao Yang. Shanghai Typhoon Institute of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai, China

Institute of Meteorological Sciences, Zhejiang Meteorological Bureau, Hangzhou, China

Yiling Hou. Shanghai Climate Center, Shanghai, China

Baode Chen. Shanghai Typhoon Institute of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai, China

Monthly mean surface air temperature data from 463 meteorological stations, including those from the 1981–2007 ordinary and national basic reference surface stations in east China and from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, are used to investigate the effect of rapid urbanization on temperature change. These stations are dynamically classified into six categories, namely, metropolis, large city, medium-sized city, small city, suburban, and rural, using satellite-measured nighttime light imagery and population census data. Both observation minus reanalysis (OMR) and urban minus rural (UMR) methods are utilized to detect surface air temperature change induced by urbanization. With objective and dynamic station classification, the observed and reanalyzed temperature changes over rural areas show good agreement, indicating that the reanalysis can effectively capture regional rural temperature trends. The trends of urban heat island (UHI) effects, determined using OMR and UMR approaches, are generally consistent and indicate that rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade−1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.

Read the original post.

These claims of UH significantly contributing to the official warming are extremely provocative. The degree of warming is certainly significant. It will be interesting to see how much of it has found its way into the official warming equation and what the responses are from the AGW proponents.

Related articles
Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT | 41 Comments

AGW – CO2 relationships – Some New Thoughts.

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

ball-and-stick model of CO2: carbon dioxide

Image via Wikipedia

 

Anthony Watt’s site WUWT posts some new revealing claims regarding man-made CO2 effects on planetary temperature.

 

The following is an extract:

PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY

Chair of Climate, Macquarie University

Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a  lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.

Salby’s  talk was given in June at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysic meeting in Melbourne Australia.   He indicates that a  journal paper is in press, with an expectation of publication a few months out.  He also hints that some of the results will be in his book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate which is supposed to be available Sept 30th.

The podcast for his talk“Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” is here (MP3 audio format). The podcast length is an hour, split between his formal presentation ~ 30 minutes, and Q&A  for the remaining time.

Comments by Anthony, Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova are included and deal with Professor Salby’s evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels are more likely to be a consequence of temperature than the other way around.

Comments from Dr Judith Curry and Dr Roy Spenser also are mentioned.

All in all, this particular issue is looking to be quite significant.

Apparently Prof. Salby was not impressed by the suggestion that the climate change science issues were ‘settled’.

Read on here.

  Related articles

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Nature | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Journey From Conspiracy Theory to Conspiracy Fact

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Reading the newspaper: Brookgreen Gardens in P...

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks to ggita32 for this post on TIP.    Linked here.

I agree that the awareness of conspiracy ‘facts’ is slowly filtering into the collective minds of the community.  As time goes on, more and more facts become visible in the mainstream media and particularly on the ‘blogging’ alternative news sites such as TIP.  There are plenty, mostly genuine responsible bloggers. TIP lists some on their sidebar.

It’s largely a matter of the information being available and the reader’s mindset. It takes time for realization of the prevalence of ‘spin’ being applied to stories by politicians and the news media, where the meaning of the story is distorted or even the truth avoided or covered up. Then there are the outright lies, believed because they are spoken by an authority. They may be repeating some-one else’s stuff and not realize the lies, but it is up to the public to use a few of their “little grey cells” and to be discerning. Not just taking the story for granted.

This article, originating on ‘PakAlert Press’, highlights a number of examples of conspiracy ‘theories’ which have become, or are becoming, generally accepted as either factual or showing strong signs of truth.

They include:

 Secret societies (eg. Bilderberg Group); World Government (New World Order); Global Private Banking Cartel; Man-made Global Warming (still hotly debated); Big Brother (Monitoring of public/private activities); Black-Ops (clandestine war crimes); War Crimes (by the military); 9/11 WTC incident (Impossible without collusion, absolute lie that bin Laden was involved); False Flag Terror (as 9/11 is claimed to be, but many other examples); Martial Law in the US; Weather modification; GMO dangers; Vaccine dangers; fluoride dangers; and a few others.

Often incidents of these areas appear on my site and/or TIP but rarely get full exposure as issues in their own right. Obviously, topics for the future.

In the meantime the article in question provides a good overall insight and should trigger some serious thinking.

Original article linked here.

Related articles
Posted in 'WAR on(of) TERROR', Civil Liberties, Conspiracies, Cover-ups, Human Behaviour, Media, New World Order | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Bill Gates and His $10 Billion Vaccine Scam

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

Bill Gates at the U.N. Office at Geneva during...

Image by US Mission Geneva via Flickr

Thanks JustMeInT. I have been waiting for some concrete evidence of the vaccine scam in poor countries. A pretence of aid to health, hiding a drive for population reduction.

Ref: Sri Lanka Guardian, a post by Thomas C. Mountain.

A couple of years ago Bill Gates, then still “the richest man in the world”, announced that he was “donating” $10 billion to fund “vaccine research” for some of the worlds worst diseases. About $1 billion of Bill Gates donation/tax deduction was ear marked for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria which is the number one killer in Africa.

I live in Eritrea in the Horn of Africa and the government here has reduced malaria mortality by over 80% in the last decade. This is the biggest breakthrough in preventing malaria mortality in history yet there has yet to be a single story on this in any of the major international media.

This historic breakthrough has been accomplished in Eritrea by the use of good old fashioned public health methods, that tried and true science that is responsible for the major increase in longevity that took place in the 20th century. That’s right, public health, meaning first of all, clean drinking water, sanitation and hygiene has been the biggest breakthrough in human health in history, not antibiotics or vaccines or drugs of any sort. Yet Public Health is increasingly under attack in much of the western world.

Eritrea has developed a three pronged approach to preventing malaria mortality. First, the Eritrean Ministry of Health provides free insecticide treated mosquito nets to all of its population in the areas where malaria is endemic. Insecticide treated mosquito nets repel mosquitos, keeping them from biting a person while they are sleeping and come in contact with the mosquito net, something almost inevitable. Insecticide treated nets also prevent mosquitos from entering inside the nets via holes or gaps in the nets coverage.

The problem with insecticide treatment is it only lasts 3 months after which the net loses much of its effectiveness. The Eritrean Ministry of Health has instituted a mandatory re-treatment program for all of its population and if the people do not bring their nets in for re-treatment, the health teams go to the peoples homes and make them re-treat their nets.

The second part of the Health Ministry’s malaria program has been the establishment of community based medical clinics where the population can go to get a free blood test to determine what variety of malaria they may have and to get the proper treatment for it. Almost every village in the Eritrea malaria belt is within a few hours walk or ride from a community medical clinic and immediate treatment for those who have contracted malaria is now accessible for almost all of Eritrea’s malaria belt residents.

The third part of the program is mosquito habitat eradication by filling in breeding sites and/or spraying insecticide on these areas.

These 3 simple, basic public health practices have resulted in the biggest breakthrough in malaria mortality prevention in history yet to this day there hasn’t been a single major story covering this in any of the major media internationally.

Why is it that worldwide headlines greet Bill Gates announcement of his “vaccine” program while the biggest breakthrough in one of the major threats to life in much of the world remains unknown?

Maybe, just maybe, this is because Eritrea’s public health approach to preventing malaria mortality is not going to put tens of billions of dollars in the pockets of the drug company cartels, one of the most profitable industries in the world.

Malaria is caused by a parasite, actually a family of parasites, and has a history of quickly developing resistance to medication. After over three decades of research no one has been able to develop a “vaccine” for malaria or some form of permanent prevention. After so many have tried and failed in the past there are more than a few in the field of malaria research who doubt that any form of conventional “vaccine” will be found. They believe that even if some form of “vaccine” is developed by the drug companies malaria will most likely develop resistance to it and a new, patented “vaccine” will have to be bought by Africa’s poor every few years.

A “donation” of $1 billion or so to develop a malaria “vaccine” could turn into “a gift that keeps on giving” in the form of tens of billions of dollars in new, patented “vaccine” sales in Africa alone and Bill Gates, through his investment portfolio of drug company stocks will quietly pocket a continuos flow of African blood money. What Bill Gates “donation” amounts to a malaria drug addiction program for Africa’s people.

It is impossible to say just how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of lives could have been saved in the two years or so since Bill Gates announced his multibillion dollar “donation” to vaccine research if just a small percentage of his “gift” had been spent on implementing the Eritrean model of malaria mortality prevention.

Bill Gates didn’t get to be a multibillionaire by being a nice guy, far from it. He and his ilk are perfectly willing to sit back and wait for their “donation” to pay off while millions die in Africa, deaths that could almost be eliminated by implementing Eritrea’s historic breakthrough in malaria mortality prevention.

So don’t believe Bill Gates has anyone else’s best interests at heart when he donates $10 billion to “vaccine” research, far from it. And don’t forget that in this world no good deed goes unpunished, as the UN inSecurity Council is once again considering how to implement new sanctions to try and cripple the Eritrean economy and hurt the Eritrean people.

Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He can be reached at thomascmountain@yahoo.com

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/08/bill-gates-and-his-10-billion-vaccine.html

Related links:

Posted in HEALTH, New World Order, vaccines | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Questioning the “Science” that the AGW promoters promote.

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

ball-and-stick model of CO2: carbon dioxide

Image via Wikipedia

It seems that the defence of the AGW scientists and supporters, against criticisms of AGW boils down (there must be a better term), to their belief in “science'”. They keep repeating ad nauseum “we believe in the science”, the “CSIRO cannot be wrong”, the “IPCC cannot be wrong”, “2,500 scientists cannot be wrong”, “there is a consensus”, “the icecaps are melting” and so on.

So the question must be asked, “is the science of the IPCC-based conclusions reliable, unbiassed, exact, beyond question, falsifiable (whatever that means), irrefutable and dependable”?

Then the next question would be, “who is capable and qualified to judge these matters”?

The answer  must be, “not the people who are involved with the IPCC and the related organizations depending on the conclusions being acted upon”! For obvious reasons! Well then, who?

Not the people who have something to gain from proving the AGW scenario and proposed actions incorrect or inappropriate. People such as those involved somehow with the fossil fuel industry, they need to support their livelihoods. On the other hand, Julia is assuring the coal industry that they have a future. There seems to be no lack of interest in new coal/gas industry investments. So why are they suspected of supporting “unscientific” opposition to AGW ?

Mind you, it is not necessary for a scientist or supporter to be necessarily right or wrong because of his/her involvement. It is really a matter of concept that a bias is present, even when it is not.

As I see the situation there are numerous scientists, engineers, physicists who are not associated with any vested interests and who are capable of assessing the planetary climate factors. The majority of the blogging contributors are such people.

The supporters, not so scientifically qualified, but still capable of assessing the commonsense of a scientific argument, are rarely biassed technically. Some may be biassed from the point of view of paying unnecessary taxes, or from the fear of the planet self-destructing or whatever. However, there are obviously a huge number of discerning bloggers and commenters who have the capability to assess the two sides of the debate and can argue very sensibly and logically about the validity of the associated actions.

My point is, there is almost unlimited evidence in existence, presented and supported by qualified, independent and intelligent people, to support the argument that the IPCC “science” is not sufficiently sound to be acceptable as a basis for turning our world into a new version of chaos.

Now, down to the science itself:

The future of our civilization is currently being pinned on the need for CO2 controls. The reason being that the atmospheric level of CO2 is claimed to have a direct influence on the current and future global climate. This is what the situation comes down to.

Either CO2 level influences our average temperature in a meaningful way or it doesn’t. If it does, is it a long term positive effect or the reverse? Before we make earth-shattering decisions and actions, these questions must be resolved. And THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED!  No sensible person can refute that there are genuine questions.

Evidence offered that CO2 has a direct and significant effect on “greenhouse” warming of the planet is being rightly and strongly questioned. CO2 effects can only be indirect because of its minor proportion (0.04%), its minor absorption factor of IR energy, (maybe 5%),  and its dependence on H2O as a companion GHG to have any noticeable effect whatever. H2O generation becomes an extremely difficult-to-assess parameter because in the upper atmosphere it acts as a “green house gas” but at lower levels forms clouds which have the opposite effect.

I have yet to be convinced that any scientist can unequivocably model these parameters confidently.  There are too many variables, dependent and independent. Nature is far too complex even for high-powered computations to mimic, and then could only do so if humans were capable of programming all the parameters, parameters that cannot be quantified accurately. Furthermore, there already is some fairly good evidence that the existing models are not viable.

On the basis of these factors, I cannot understand how anyone can be firmly convinced that CO2 levels need to be controlled.  To claim belief in “the science” is, in reality, only to have faith in “the science”, that is not the same thing. There is no certainty, no reason for confidence.  NO scientific basis for drastic action.

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, Nature, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

High Priest – Tim Flannery

Posted on August 4, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

IPA REVIEW ARTICLE (source)

Tim Flannery: climate prophet

 James Paterson

‘I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets.’

That’s Tim Flannery, Julia Gillard’s hand-picked Climate Change Commissioner, or preacher-in-chief, if you prefer.

Appointed by Climate Change Minister Greg Combet to his $3,000 per week, part-time job in February, Flannery is tasked with turning around the climate change debate for the minority Labor administration.

His comments, made in a 2004 interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, are just one indicator of the depth of Flannery’s quasi-religious fervour for climate change, not to mention his exaggerated sense of self-importance.

Many commentators have noted the extensive use of quasi-religious language by climate activists. Followers of the hypothesis that man is responsible for so-called dangerous climate change are referred to as ‘believers’ whilst doubters are often labelled ‘deniers,’ ‘sceptics’ and even ‘heretics.’

The public shaming and bullying of any scientist who differs from climate science orthodoxy is eerily reminiscent of a latter-day Salem Witch-trial or Spanish Inquisition, with public floggings meted out-metaphorically speaking-for their thought crimes. Indeed, ‘dissenters’, as they have also been labelled, suffer ritual humiliation at the hands of their colleagues and the media, with their every motivation questioned and views pilloried.

Elements of the climate change movement are beginning to bear more resemblance to a religious cult than a scientific community. Dalliances with authoritarianism are never far from the fringes of the green movement.

Prominent green activist, Clive Hamilton, for instance, has suggested that the ‘suspension of democratic processes’ might be a necessary ‘emergency’ response to the threat of climate change. Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly recently wrote that ‘Australia’s ludicrous dithering on a pollution tax’ was evidence that voting should be a ‘privilege’ rather than a right and that China should be envied because it need not ‘pander’ to voters.

This article shows how ridiculous the Australian government behaviour is in respect of understanding and acting on misguided agenda-driven “science”.  The last part of the extract in my ‘bold emphasis’ demonstrates how absurd their beliefs are. These people are bordering on paranioa, devoid of commonsense and respect for humanity.

A belief-industry which advises them to take urgent financial and control actions which will have no benefit to anyone other than the advisors themselves. The carbon tax pushers keep harping on about science when there is no logically acceptable science to  support CO2 restrictions or taxes.

The complete article can read here.

Related articles
Posted in carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

INJUSTICE from the “Justice System” – Food Industry

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

A baby having milk from a bottle.

Image via Wikipedia

I refer to an American Federal Court Ruling where a consumer made claims against a food manufacturer because the food was contaminated with foreign matter.

Reference ‘Food Freedom’ post by Jack Bouboushian
Courthouse News Service

Baby formula laced with beetles and larvae does not necessarily violate its manufacturer’s promises of wholesomeness and quality, a federal judge ruled, in dismissing without prejudice a class action involving Abbott Laboratories’ Similac.

Lead plaintiff Chalonda Jasper, an Indiana mother, may have been grossed out by the beetle parts, but she may have no legal recourse against Abbott, even though she relied upon Abbot’s ad slogans, which included, “When it comes to the science of nutrition, Similac stands apart.”

Abbott recalled more than 5 million containers of Similac in September 2010, less than a week after Jasper had bought it and began feeding it to her son.

 The verdict was

“Jasper’s complaint includes no marketing statements from Abbott that claim Similac is safe. Instead, Abbott’s advertisements only refer to the nutritional value and nutrient blend of Similac.”

To sum it up: “Jasper does not allege that a formula containing beetles or beetle larvae fails to contain a balanced blend of nutrients,” Kendall wrote.

Read the article here.

So, because no harm other than mental anguish was suffered, the food manufacturer was not found to have done any wrong. Allowing contamination to occur and marketing contaminated product is legally acceptable if no physical harm results. The company has done no wrong!

Another instance of the public being shafted by the food industry and the judicial system in America.  So, is my logic twisted or is the judges? Is there corruption here?

Why bring this up such  along way from the US? Because injustices also occur in Australia where known convicted pedophiles walk the streets freely because it is illegal to publicly name them. No justice or protection for the kids and parents, only protection for the offenders.

Related articles
Posted in FOODS, HEALTH, Justice | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Australia: Carbon Tax – Interested in a petition opposing it?

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Ken McMurtrie

JustMeInT has a post explaining this petition at  MP launches carbon tax petition.

A direct link  here: http://www.nationals.org.au.

Posted in carbon tax, ENVIRONMENT | 2 Comments