Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods

WALTER CUNNINGHAM in the HOUSTON CHRONICLE on Aug. 14, 2010 wrote:(link in title)

The question of human-caused global warming should not be resolved on the publicized opinions of influential journalists, but in the court of scientific inquiry based on the scientific data. The interested public can find legitimate and easily understood empirical data online. None of it supports the alarmists' belief in human-caused global warming.

It makes good sense to look at the history of climate science.

Empirical data, collected over several centuries, led to a provisional theory of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, oceans and variations in the Earth's orbit are the principal drivers of climate change. Although we don't fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, this theory has stood the test of time. In the process, it became the de facto theory of climate change.

It is the job of science to develop the theories that explain our natural world. Scientific theories, even those that evolved over centuries, are subject to challenge and change — when supported by the appropriate scientific data. This enables new hypotheses to modify, or even replace, currently accepted theories.

It is interesting that Walter and his correspondents seem to know more about climate science than most of the MSM.

Some comments on the Chronicle site:


Regarding "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), Robert Curl is making two invalid assumptions. First, he assumes the administrators of the National Academy of Sciences represent the opinions of their 2,480 members. In fact, there is no document that any representative number of these 2,480 members have signed expressing their opinion that the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is valid.

Second, he assumes there is some "best science" out there that prevails over the body of opinion represented by Walter Cunningham ("Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods," Page B10, Aug. 15). In fact, neither Curl nor any of the proponents of human-caused climate change can demonstrate a valid hypothesis to support their opinions.

If a hypothesis makes any incorrect prediction, the hypothesis is wrong. It does not matter if you have a Nobel Prize. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis is wrong. An overwhelming body of science has proven the hypothesis of human-caused climate change is wrong.

— EDWIN BERRY,
Bigfork, Mont.
Wrong logic

In regard to "The best science indicates humans causing warming" (Page B7, Saturday), climate change is happening and global warming is happening — but it ain't being caused by us pesky humans. Robert Curl's verbiage points a crooked finger directly at me and you, and it shouldn't. Award-winning scientists such as Professor Curl are prime suspects for marching with a flute in their hands, leading an innocent group of followers down a path of believable logic (albeit wrong). If humans cause global warming how do you explain the constant, steady pattern of ice age-then-warming, ice age-then-warming, that is documented over the past 500,000 years? The problem with those who believe in human-caused global warming: They only cite references that support their theories. No one looks up anything, and Curl gets another award and probably a pay raise from Rice University.

— DAVID WALTON,
Houston

Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators

Press Release

Climate Sceptic candidates to announce their vision for Northern Water diversions to SA Murray River irrigators

Aug 13th

On Monday Aug 16th at 10 am The Climate Sceptics will announce their Northern Australia Water diversion vision at Berri next to the River Murray.
Several Irrigator groups have been invited to attend the announcement and discuss the idea which Barker Candidate Steve Davies and Senate candidate Leon Ashby will explain.

Leon Ashby says "Australia has one of the world flattest inland landscapes that would lend itself to having the most efficient water diversion scheme in the world - if anti progress Green ideology was overcome."
The environment award winner says: "I lived in North Central Qld for a decade and saw the massive amounts of water that northern rivers have at times. I was runner up for a Qld Landcare research award which moved water gravitationally over a 10,000 acres rather than let it flow down several creeks) It was a mini version of what can be done across Australia."
The Senate candidate says "There are 4 areas in Australia where water diversions should be properly investigated (provided most of the water was used for irrigation and city purposes) which then pays for the scheme.

1) The Clarence River in Northern NSW north of Coffs Harbour (which has flooded 3 times in the last 18 months);

2) The Johnson, Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers dammed up at Hells Gate and then run through a tunnel to the western side of the great dividing range. (The cost of the dam was $750 million last time it was researched);

3) A diversion from the Flinders, Normanton and Gilbert Rivers down the west side of the Great dividing range; and

4) A pipeline from Lake Argyle in the Northern Territory across to Qld.

Mr Ashby adds: "In 1980s the Bjelke-Petersen government commissioned its own study. Bringing together four of Australia’s best-known hydraulic engineering firms - Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey; Monro & Johnson; McIntyre & Associates and Cameron McNamara - the State government formed the Bradfield (Northern Rivers) Study consortium in 1984.

This report was never released!"

Mr Ashby pledged that if elected to the SA Senate he will champion a visionary Northern River diversions system transparently pricing and evaluating each on their cost/ benefit ratio of volume water provided versus setup cost, and built in stages and structured so water and land sold as part of the scheme then paid for the building costs over time.


He concludes "Water could flow via gravity from Hells Gate in North Qld to Murray Bridge or almost anywhere in the Riverina if we desired it.
23% of Australias runoff (in other words 6 times the water in the Murray Darling) flow runs out into the Gulf of Carpentaria each year.
Only 3% of the water in Lake Argyle is used each year. There is oodles of water if we are not brainwashed into the anti progress green ideas."

It is a plan that would stop Riverina farmers losing their water rights and bring greater prosperity to rural communities inland.

UK Guardian - So Right and yet So Wrong

The UK Guardian praises Sceptics. What you say? I repeat, the UK Guardian praises Sceptics.

Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.


Well, that's right. We have looked at the flawed hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming, picked at it, looked at both sides of the argument and found it wanting.

So, does the Guardian agree with us? No.

"Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence."

Then the Guardian goes on to say:

"Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases."

Call me a Sceptic and I may be wrong, but, reading the report three times through, I didn't see any mention of "rising concentrations of greenhouse gases." I did see mention of the el Nino/La Nina as a cause.

But CAN WE BELIEVE THE REPORT?

Well, if we look to both Jo Nova and the SPPI we find a different story.

Joanne Nova says: "As usual, the official taxpayer-funded report is full of half-truths and strawmen. Arctic sea ice is shrinking (no mention of the Antarctic), the world is undeniably warming (yes, so? what’s causing that warming?). There’s the compulsory allusions to “consensus” — 300 scientists, blah blah blah (trust us! we’re experts).

The interesting thing is that the seven different responses are all quite different, yet all skeptical, even though there was no coordination behind the scenes to create that. There are so many holes in the NOAA document, that seven commentators could fire ad lib, and for the most part, all find different targets."

From the SPPI report, we find:

Craig Idso: NOAA is rewriting history.... The Vikings were never forced out of Greenland due to the nasty cold spell called the Little Ice Age.

Dennis Ambler: Are sea-level rises accelerating? No sir.

David Evans: 250 years of warming but not so not much lately

Plus Lord Monckton, Joe D'Aleo and Chip Knappenberger.

So Guardian Editors, Seven critiques of the NOAA report. Seven examples of Reasond judgment and hard-headed critical faculties. And where did we come in?
Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.

Our Australia

BY DR EARNEST TAYLOR (Ret) WHO MIGRATED TO AUSTRALIA

I emigrated to Australia just over 45 years ago – On the ship there were Poms, Italians, Yugoslavs and Greeks, (Note – All European people!!) all looking forward to starting a new life in Australia. I arrived with 42 pounds in my pocket and that’s all I had to my name. Did I put my hand out?? Of course not – I got a job and paid my way just like everyone else who came to this country back then.

Now, it’s my taxes that subsidize these people who think they have God's given right (read Allah) to come here and criticize those of us who have worked for the country we now call home.

If I didn’t like what I saw when I got here I would have gone home – they have the same option. If they don’t want to become an Australian, they can…………….GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM – WE DON’T NEED THEM HERE!!!
Our Australia
When will this stop,
They want two of their own public holidays, because Christians have Christmas, Easter & good Friday,
They force our children to eat Halal Meat Pies and Sausage Rolls from the school canteens, so the Muslim kids can feel more Aussie, we were not consulted about this change, they went ahead and just did it.
Our foods are slowly all becoming Halal foods, our Bega cheeses, Cadbury chocolates even good old Sanitarium foods show the halal logo

Our Government is ALLOWING this to happen, it has to stop now, while we still have some people power to be able to stop it.

Regarding Our National Anthem

I am sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Arabic - enough is enough. No where or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written.

The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.

I am not sorry if this offends anyone, but this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ----and please pass this along

I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and LONG LIVE Australia !

PART OF THE PROBLEM. Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Will we still have our Country of Choice and still be Australian if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in Australia because it is their Country of Choice??
And by our politicians who are allowing this to happen.
Think about it!

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.

It is Time for Australia to Speak up.

Penny Sackett and Climate Hoax Policy

Our chief scientist, Penny Sackett, at the climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week seems to be confused.

From the Chief Scientist's Website: The Office of the Chief Scientist supports the Chief Scientist for Australia in her role of providing independent advice to Government on a wide range of scientific and technological issues and her engagement with the science, research and industry communities, learned societies and other governments.



My interpretation is that, by independent advice, it would mean reviewing all science as it applies to Australia and not just science as it relates to the Labor Government's AGW policies. Ms Sackett has been known to say publicly that there are no peer-review papers against the hoax hypothesis of AGW. This is despite her knowledge that they do exist. Therefore she pushes the Labor Government line.


Prof Sackett said: "Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it (AGW), is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change."

Well, Ms Sackett, practise what you preach!



AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, says polarising debate on which policy is best to address climate change is often unhelpfully confused with the scientific argument for global warming.

At a climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week, Professor Sackett told The Age acting on climate change should be the role of all Australian political parties.

It was the responsibility of politicians, scientists and the public to engage with each other on the issue, she said.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,'' she said.

''The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, whereas the consensus within the political community - and those who elect them - about what to do about it is less strong.

She continued:"While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act."

Well, Ms Sackett is polarised on the hoax hypothesis and will not looks at the evidence against the hoax.

''My expectation as a citizen is that every political party would be engaging in learning about more the science, so together they can, in Parliament - where everybody has one voice regardless of their political party - make the most of an opportunity to make the best policies for Australia,'' she said.

Why, oh why does she not practise what she preaches. Why does she close her mind to the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is innocent?

Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics

IN the Atlantic Wire in an article headed: Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics Heather Horn writes about a faulty article and makes her own mistakes. Take her first two sentences:

A new study claims to show that the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are less expert than their climate-change-believing peers. In other words: the climate skeptics aren't just in the minority--they're not very good scientists, either.


I will look at the flawed study in a moment, but "the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming.." Really Heather! If you wanted to talk about few, that is the number that wrote the flawed IPCC Assessment Reports. Less than 100! But Heather, look at Senator Inhofe's list....more than 400; Look at the Petition Project...31487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9029 with PhDs.

Then she goes on to say "they're not very good scientists, either." Well, sorry, Heather, but the "not very good scientists" are the IPCC scientists who, instead of being objective and looking openly at results, but instead tried to prove man-made warming then wondered why there was no current warming and then tried to HIDE THE DECLINE

Heather, go to and find out how flawed your original list is!

Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts

Climate Consequences with Anthony Watts

Renowned Meteorologist Anthony Watts is including Newcastle in his Australian Tour



The Government has postponed the ETS but is still spending 2 billion dollars of your money ‘solving’ climate change. Find out why that money is not well spent.

Date: Thursday June 17 2010
Time: 6:00pm
Location: Newcastle City Hall King St, Newcastle
Entry: General: $20
Concession: $15

Speakers:

Anthony Watts – A television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air, operates a weather technology business, and runs one of the most popular science blogs on the internet. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.
Anthony will present advance results on his Surfacestations project to photographically survey every one of the 1221 USHCN stations in the USA, and talk about how the ‘official’ temperature record is unreliable.

David Archibald – an Australian–based scientist operating in the fields of climate science, cancer research and the author of Solar Cycle 24 – David will talk about the role of the sun, why the world will continue cooling and why carbon dioxide won’t make a detectable difference.

Dr David Stockwell – Former Climate Effects Scientist living in Emerald QLD & author of the book Niche Modeling, David will talk about what we do know about climate change, how that contradicts warming models and how the CSIRO has got it wrong.

For enquiries call 0412474916 or visit www.climatesceptics.com.au(link in title)