It’s no secret that Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s outstanding, purely scientific Medieval Warming Period Map project has been held in very high regard within the science community.

It’s also no secret that some government-funded scientists and a slew of activists are not at all happy that it has created controversy and cast serious doubt over climate science. Indeed Lüning’s project has exposed that climate science has been a bit sloppy in its handling of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

Recently Dr. Lüning entered his Medieval Warming Period Map project in a French-government sponsored contest, 100 Projects for the Climate, which has the aim of selecting and supporting the 100 best climate-related projects. 

To say the least, the project seemed to be generating a fair amount of voter activity.

Recently I got some mail from readers who had sought to cast their vote for Lüning’s project at the French-government operated website. They asked me to check the link because they had been getting the following error message:

DMI Show Greenland Was Warmer in 1930’s

According to the official numbers from DMI, annual temperatures across Greenland were just as high in the 1930s and 40s as they have been in recent years. The only exception was the unusually warm year of 2010.

But what about summertime temperatures? Since that is when most ice melt occurs, this time of year is perhaps the most relevant. 

A recent Pew Center poll shows public concern about global warming continues very low and even declining slightly. They’ve been there for a year now as comparison of their 2009/2010 results show. The most significant shift is in Energy, which dropped from 60 to 49 percent. Partly due to the declining gas prices, but also lower concern about failure of the basic energy sources and reduced threat of carbon taxes.

People pushing or accepting the false science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are reacting. Responses reveal agendas are political not science. Obama’s White House leads the charge, but all governments continue to pursue policies that make them appear green, while ignoring the facts.

The policies are unnecessary, extremely expensive, and economically destructive. The real motive is increased taxation and government control. For some, like Obama, it’s about total government control and destruction of the industrial based economy.

According to recent reports, “giant storms on gassy Uranus have astronomers scratching their heads,” because they are extremely large [~5,760 miles wide] and especially because they are extremely hot [2,800°F = melting point of steel].

How does that happen on a planet 30 times further from the Sun than Earth, and without any volcanic activity or SUVs?

From a Mannian/Hansenian runaway-greenhouse radiative-forcing effect? 

A semantic confusion is clouding one of the most talked-about issues in research. Scientists agree that there is a crisis in reproducibility, but they can’t agree on what ‘reproducibility’ means.

The muddle is hampering communication about the problem and efforts to address it, a meeting last week on improving the reproducibility of preclinical research was told.

Most scientists — at least, those in biomedical research — have the idea that reproducible findings are those that give generally consistent results across slight variations in experimental set-up, says Ferric Fang, a microbiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “Reproduction is taking the idea of a scientific project and showing that it is robust enough to survive various sorts of analysis,” he says. That is, that it supports an expectation, for example that ‘reproducible’ preclinical results are those worth taking forward to clinical trials.

Welcome to FP Comment’s 18^th annual Junk Science Week, dedicated to exposing the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science data to achieve their objectives. Our standard definition over the years has been this: junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda.

Much of our content over the past 18 years has focused less on science itself and more on the NGOs, politicians and others who have found it convenient to use and abuse science as a springboard to political action. It is easy, perhaps too easy, to follow the empty-headed foibles of a media culture that mindlessly recycles reports that bacon may cause heart disease or that cell phones cause cancer. Less easy is dealing with the much bigger problem: the break down of science itself. In The Guardian last week, Jerome Ravetz, considered one of the world’s leading philosophers of science, reviewed what he and many others describe as “the crisis in science.”

Ridd was punished by James Cook University for “not displaying responsibility in respecting the reputations of other colleagues.” The university even warned that if he does this again, he’ll be tried for serious misconduct.

The latest perversion in research ethics comes to us from James Cook University in Australia. The Australian has the scoop, but it is behind paywall. Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller has an article on this University Censures Science Prof For Fact-Checking Global Warming Claim. Excerpts:

An Australian university recently censured marine scientist Paul Ridd for “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution,” because he questioned popular claims among environmentalists about coral reefs and global warming.

NOAA announced this weekend that there is a 75 percent chance a La Niña will form in the equatorial Pacific Ocean by fall, a phenomenon that is the flip side of the now-deceased El Niño.

Currently, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have returned to normal and experts think a La Niña will develop from July through September, bringing cooler temps this winter. La Niña events occur when cooler-than-normal surface waters of the equatorial (tropical) Pacific Ocean are observed.

SAN DIEGO — A distant world could be rich in limestone, a rock that, on Earth, is produced by living processes.

The planet’s star is slowly devouring it, revealing to watching astronomers what looks like a limestone crust. On Earth, limestone has ties to living organisms, though the substance can also form without their help.

By studying the outer layers of the hungry star, scientists are able to investigate the material sloughed off from the planet.

“This material appears to have high carbon content,” said Carl Melis at a press conference on Monday (Jun 13) at the 228th American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California. Melis, an astronomer studying dying stars known as white dwarfs at the University of California, San Diego, was part of a team that identified the remains as being from a world rich in limestone’s components, carbon and calcium. 

Google caught conspiring with government-funded bodies to hide the rise in polar bear population known about since November 2015. 

polarbearscience.com reports:

It is now past the 15 June 2016 mark and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has still not acknowledged the 2015 IUCN Red List update on the status of polar bears. See the screencap below, taken this morning.

This notice has been up since 14 January 2016 and no reference or link to the November 2015 IUCN Red List update has been posted, even though PBSG members authored the report (pdf here)!

What they may not realize is that their silence just drives people who search the internet looking for up-to-date population and conservation status info on polar bears to this site. My posts on population size and conservation status have been the most popular posts since November.

Climate scientists have confessed they are baffled – yet again – by another all-time record area of sea covered by ice around the Antarctic coasts.

“What we’re learning is, we have more to learn,” said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, announcing the latest annual sea ice maximum for the austral continent. According to the NSIDC:

Sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average.

The first plank of Principia Scientific International’s mission statement is to be the leading independent voice for principled science as per the Traditional Scientific Method (TSM) and associated ideas of Popper.  Hence, the question asked by the title.  Or, what are the associated ideas of Popper bringing to the table?  Or?  As I wrote John O’Sullivan, I am confused. 

The name of Principia Scientific International (PSI) must be associated with Isaac Newton’s classic book—The Principia.  So more specifically:  Why were not Newton’s four Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy not sufficient to define the traditional scientific method that was borne of the Age of Enlightenment and that gave rise to the technological advances of the industrial revolution?  Only the founders of PSI, who wrote its mission statement, can answer these questions.

The bad science, relative to the good traditional science, PSI terms “Post-normalism which is defined as a pre-deterministic approach where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it. Perceived as the most culpable purveyors of this modern malaise are national governments, NGO’s and big corporations.”  At first I agreed with this diagnosis of the problem.  But I now consider it misses the central point.  It is human ‘nature’ that once one has claimed ownership of an idea, it is tough to give it up because to give it up is to admit that I was wrong.  People do not ‘naturally’ want their ideas challenged.

Schneefan at his site here writes about the unusually wet weather Europe has been experiencing lately. This has to be upsetting to global climate modelers and scientists, who years ago claimed Europe would have to expect hot, dry summers involving severe periods of droughts.

That prediction has turned out to be totally wrong. The very opposite has in fact occurred.

The reason for the recent wet conditions are likely in part due to the post (natural) ENSO activity of the past months, which have disrupted weather patterns, Schneefan suspects.

On global temperature we see the clear impacts of the oceanic ENSO. Schneefan writes the following at his site:

“The regional development in Europe is affected by the rash global cooling following the El Niño peak in global temperatures in February 2016.

The rash cooling is also continuing in June 2016 and will lead to further high precipitation in places like Australia.

With El Niño officially over, new data shared yesterday by NASA’s GISS shows the average surface temperature was 0.93 degrees Celsius (1.57°F) above average for May 2016, the first time in eight months that it was under one degree Celsius. Even the satellite temperature record released this month shows the global average temperature for May 2016 is 0.55 degrees Celsius (0.99°F) above the thirty-year average for that month, down 0.16 degrees Celsius (0.29°F) from last month. The satellite’s average global temperature is for the lower troposphere, which is the air from the ground to about four miles up.

Some claim the entire notion that human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing global warming is a deliberately created myth, that it was produced to isolate CO2 as a serious environmental problem that required curtailing the economies of developed countries. To enhance the threat required endangerment to plants, animals, and humans. The list of threats is endless because proponents of AGW can take everyday natural events and say they are not ‘normal.’ They know that most don’t know what is normal, as I discussed in a previous article, and that what is a ‘normal’ climate, changes with time. Many people use these interchangeably with natural and unnatural. The list of myths attributed to global warming is endless, but one started a few years ago titled, “A complete list of things caused by global warming” keeps expanding.

There is added confusion in the climate debates because proponents continually interchange ‘natural’ and ‘normal.’ It is a reflection of the philosophical and intellectual confusions and contradictions that result from the deception. It probably also reflects the underlying anti-humanity of many extreme environmentalists. For example, in Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report (1990), edited by Jeremy Leggett, says CO2 is added to the atmosphere naturally and unnaturally. By unnatural they mean the portion comes from humans. Is it reasonable to assume that if what we do as animals is unnatural, then we are unnatural? Goethe confronted the dilemma when he said,

“The unnatural – that too is natural.”

Ironically, the marketplace passed judgment on Leggett’s work. A paperback edition is available for one (1) cent assuming you are prepared to pay the $3.99 shipping. By comparison, a 2004 second edition of a true work of science, Jean Grove’s The Little Ice Age, originally published in 1988, is available in hardcover discounted at $657.82 with free shipping.

Combine these confusions of natural and unnatural, normal and abnormal with incorrect science and you create myths such as the claim that with global warming storms will become more frequent and severe.

The most frequent type of storms, which probably kill far more people over time than hurricanes or any other extreme weather phenomenon, is Mid-Latitude Cyclones. Figure 1 shows a map of the Low-Pressure Center and the wave that forms to create Cold and Warm Fronts.

FOREWORD

In 2010 Jason J. Sharples, an Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales, wrote an article titled ‘Watching the World Cup’. Despite the title, the article addresses a number of papers and articles refuting the theories of black holes and Big Bang cosmology written by Stephen J. Crothers. In his article, Sharples has committed several major errors, and resorted to language unbefitting a publicly funded professorship when addressing the person of Crothers.

After some rolling preamble, Sharples disputes two matters addressed by Crothers: (a) Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, (b) Einstein’s pseudotensor. In the first case Sharples incorrectly argues that multiple arbitrarily large finite masses are not involved in its definition. In the second case he failed to understand the problem and thereby expounded upon an entirely different matter that was never contested by Crothers in the first place – Sharples confounded the Einstein tensor for Einstein’s pseudotensor and consequently did not even address the issue.

Jason J. Sharples is an Associate Professor of applied mathematics at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, in Canberra, Australia. In 2010 he wrote an article titled ‘Watching the World Cup’ [1]. This article seems not to have been formally published but Sharples has made it freely available on the World Wide Web, and it is even cited by critics [2] of Crothers as ‘proof’ of errors committed by Crothers. The very title of the article by Sharples has attached to it a footnote which reads: