Skip to main content

The Principle of Goodness is an exciting new understanding of ethics that takes account of the welfare of every sentient being. A new, gentler, caring future is in store for humanity and for our non-human friends who share the Earth with us. This site explores using the Principle of Goodness to bring about a new and better future for us all.


Site Key Topics Guide

Elements of Peace Obstacles to Peace
Human Psychology and Peace The Nature of Reality
The Climate Change Scam The Science of Global Warming

Carbon Is Life Book

 

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) obstructing access to raw data

I've been trying to get raw temperature date from the BOM website. Remember, this is data whose collection we as taxpayers have financed over the years: from thermometers behind old post offices in one-horse towns in the 19th century, all the way to modern computerised weather stations. But we paid for it, just as we pay the salaries of the alarmists who populate what is laughingly called a bureau of "meteorology".

So let's see what the site looks like:

Climate drivel from the heads of the EPA

I came across this utter howler of a quote today:

There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected…we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.” - WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN (heads of the EPA under Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush), NYTimes, 8/2/13

The planet is awash with nonsense like this, but this one got my goat, probably because the collective bunch of shysters who penned it have taken a whole lot of taxpayers' money to come up with this dangerous pack of lies. It needs to be taken apart, piece by piece.

Posted on Scott Adams' Blog

Scott Adams is trying to figure out which side of politics is less rational. But he assumes the answer to his question before he even gets started when he wrote:

Climate Change Claim 1: Human activity plus natural factors are changing the climate in ways that could be calamitous.

Verdict: True. The overwhelming majority of credible scientists agree.

Scott needs a lesson in science. I replied:

Your climate change claim 1 verdict assumes that one side is right and the other wrong, and it does so on the basis of popular consensus, which plays no part in science (so I won't mention the 30,000 scientists who signed a letter saying otherwise). Science is built, not on consensus but on evidence, hypotheses, and testing. Let me illustrate by summarising the entire global warming debate in a few sentences..

The global warming theory is that doubling CO2 will cause something "around" a degree C warming. A bit more, a bit less, but something thereabouts.

Everyone agrees. Everyone sane, that is, both alarmists and skeptics alike.

But the alarmist theory goes on as follows: Yes, but that ~1C will cause more evaporation from the oceans, and H2O is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so the 1C gets multiplied 2,3, 4, 6, you name it, times, causing catastrophic warming of 4C, 6C, whatever hairy scary figure you care to pick.

That's it. The difference is between skeptics who say CO2 causes 1C warming and alarmists who say it causes a multiplied amount limited only by how frightened they want you to be today.

So, how to test it?

Catalyst catastrophe

I was watching "Catalyst" today. (For non-Australian readers, Catalyst is a science show put on by "Your" ABC - the government owned anti-government propaganda outfit).

Story 1: A fantastic new way to concentrate the sun's rays hundreds of times to generate power.

Story 2: The wonderful environmental benefits from Australia's incredible birds.

In Defence of Dr Tim Ball

When I read People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception by Dr Tim Ball, I found much I agreed with. Tim’s argument is, IMHO, a useful contribution to the question of how the climate alarmists have got away with foisting this mistaken theory upon the world. Then I read A big (goose) step backwards, by Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards.

And I’m disappointed.

What the fuss is all about:

Ball quotes Adolf Hitler’s explanation of how to successfully tell a lie and get it believed. He makes his case that the IPCC and climate alarmism as a movement, effectively puts this method of deception into practice. In that, I believe he is (1) correct, and (2) saying something that is long overdue. In fact, I include this same statement in my own book, Carbon Is Life, when I try to explain what has been happening in the world of late.

Now what would a suitable response to that argument by Ball look like? I would hope it would argue, somehow, that the publicity methods of the alarmist camp do not follow Hitler’s deception methodology. What I would not hope for is a response like that of Betts and Edwards that tells an untruth about Ball’s post in the very first sentence: “Dr Tim Ball’s blog post “People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception” – drawing parallels between climate scientists and Hitler – doesn’t do anyone in the climate change debate any favours: in fact it seems a big (goose) step backwards.”

Ball does not draw any parallels between anyone and Hitler. (If you disagree, please follow the Eschenbach principle – quote the words.) He draws the important (and IMHO, correct) parallel between the propaganda techniques of the IPCC et al, and the “big lie” technique as explained by Hitler. Are they the same? Ball states his case in detail, and Anthony has made the forum available for B&E or others to publish their best attempt to rebut Ball’s case.

But instead, B&E’s response is as far as I can see, completely fact, and argument, free. It is (yet another) attack upon Dr Ball, upon both his professionalism (“pointless, playground insults”) and his character (“Tim sink to a new low, with Mein Kampf quotes and snide misrepresentation of the IPCC reports”). Not a syllable about whether he was right or wrong!

Real Science Debates Are Not Rare

Reposted from Wattsupwiththat

This post from wattsupwiththat.com is, IMHO, one of the most important and insightful essays about science ever to appear. It is far too important to be lost amongst the many other posts on the very popular site by Anthony Watts. In the hope that it gets seen some more, I repost it here.


Guest Post by Dr. Robert G. Brown

The following is an “elevated comment” appearing originally in the comments to “A Rare Debate on the ‘Settled Science’ of Climate Change”, a guest essay by Steve Goreham. It is RG Brown’s reply to the Steven Mosher comment partially quoted at the beginning of the essay. This essay has been lightly edited by occasional WUWT contributor Kip Hansen with the author’s permission and subsequently slightly modified with a postscript by RGB.

rgbatduke

October 3, 2014 at 8:41 am

“…debates are rare because science is not a debate, or more specifically, science does not proceed or advance by verbal debates in front of audiences. You can win a debate and be wrong about the science. Debates prove one thing. Folks who engage in them don’t get it, folks who demand them don’t get it and folks who attend them don’t get it”.

Steven Mosher – comment

Um, Steven [Steven Mosher], it is pretty clear that you’ve never been to a major physics meeting that had a section presenting some unsettled science where the organizers had set up two or more scientists with entirely opposing views to give invited talks and participate in a panel just like the one presented. This isn’t “rare”, it is very nearly standard operating procedure to avoid giving the impression that the organizers are favoring one side or the other of the debate. I have not only attended meetings of this sort, I’ve been one of the two parties directly on the firing line (the topic of discussion was a bit esoteric — whether or not a particular expansion of the Green’s function for the Helmholtz or time-independent Schrodinger equation, which comes with a restriction that one argument must be strictly greater than the other in order for the expansion to converge, could be used to integrate over cells that de facto required the expansion to be used out of order). Sounds a bit, err, “mathy”, right, but would you believe that the debate grew so heated that we were almost (most cordially :-) shouting at each other by the end? And not just the primary participants — members of the packed-room audience were up, gesticulating, making pithy observations, validating parts of the math.

I've just been rude to some very 'nice' people

In response to this:

2015 ACT Arts Fund successful applicants

  • Aspen Island Theatre Company: $18,793 to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, 'Kill Climate Deniers'.

I was very rude (seriously!):

Evil stalks the land

Around 1930, some prescient souls warned the Germans that Hitler wasn't just a hot-head. That is, the coming holocaust was foretold. But most good Germans said it was rubbish, things like that just don't happen in a cultured nation like Germany.

It did. And now we have to wonder about the future for Australia, even if Australia with its easy-going attitude seems like the very last place this sort of evil might take hold. A major national newspaper—not some peripheral extremist rag—published this cartoon:

Let's be very clear about what we see here. That isn't a depiction of any actual Jewish leader against whom some accusation is being levelled. It isn't the group of Jewish youth on a hill who, some say, were cheering the bombing of the Hamas rocket launchers that had been pounding the Jewish homes. I'll tell you exactly what that hook-nosed fellow in the armchair is.

So you still take "climate scientists" seriously?

Dear oh dear! All those naive newborns who trust "climate scientists"! Wake up and smell the scandal. Case in point, Wattsupwiththat carries a report today from the University of Wisconsin-Madison of a new study that can't avoid the fact that the models and the data are now in clear, unambiguous contradiction. From the report:

“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”

A real scientist, of course, would conclude that, things having been checked and rechecked (see definition of "robust"), the models are wrong. And since the models are the only evidence for the catastrophic global warming theory, which is already in serious disagreement with reality, that the theory is wrong too. But what do the authors of this "study" conclude?

'Nuff said

I just met a lady whose husband is an environmental scientist.

"He's always going on about the rubbish in the paper about global warming," she said. "'Why don't you say something?' I asked. He said 'Because I have to worry about my job.'"

Syndicate content