The magazine increasingly regarded as a sock puppet for the cause of climate alarm, ‘New Scientist’ trumpets another hollow, science-free cry to readers to stay scared about climate change. Below we dissect this Chicken Little nonsense.

You know you’re about to be flim-flammed from the very start in “Is it Time to Stop Worrying About Global Warming?” (December 7, 2013) when the opening shot cries out, “Climate sceptics are finding it ever harder to persuade the public that the climate isn’t changing.” 

Now hold on a cotton-picking minute. I’ve been posting articles about man-made global warming for five years and in all that time neither I, nor any of my science advisers asserted climate doesn’t change – it always changes – that’s the point!

Any scientist worth his or her salt knows our planet is subject to awesome and unstoppable shifts in and out of periods of natural warming and cooling –  all cyclical in pattern and driven by cosmic forces far, far outside of our planet. Indeed, for the last 11,000 years Earth has been in one of those increasingly rare warming phases. It’s called the Holocene Period, the warmest part of which occured 5,000-9,000 years ago and termed a ‘Climatic Optimum’  don’t you know!  An ‘optimum’ because warmer climates are better to support life. [1]

While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published five reports over two decades using the metric of global surface temperatures to alarm us of a slight warming trend between 1975-1997, ‘New Scientist’ now assures us reliance on such empirical evidence is “misguided.” Wow!

Unsurprisingly then, as we appear to be dealing with con artists, that ‘New Scientist’ thereafter doubles down from this straw man opening gambit in its ‘scientific’ argument to pursue the lame “missing heat” hypothesis promulgated by Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth is among that small coterie of favoured UN climate “experts” who pursues a faith-based (post-normal) brand of science based on computer models that treat our planet as a flat disk bathed by 24 hours of insipid twilight. It’s all part of the over-simplified and dumbed down ‘flat earth’  climate physics that leaves experts from the ‘hard’ sciences cold.

Open letter challenges minister to come clean and admit global warming alarmism based on fear, not science. Freedom of Information (FoI) results on Australian government climate science (2005-2013) proves no one in Howard or Rudd-Gillard governments received any factual scientific evidence on man-made global warming.

 Independent climate researcher, Malcolm Roberts, issues another in a series of open challenges to Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, proving Hunt has no empirical scientific evidence for cutting human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Open letter published in full below:

Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.

180 Haven Road,

Pullenvale QLD  4069

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 04 1964 2379 and 07 3374 3374

Wednesday, March 19^th, 2014

Gregory-Andrew: Hunt.

Minister for the Environment

PO Box 274

Hastings Vic 3915

And,

PO Box 6022


House of Representatives

Parliament House


Canberra ACT 2600

[email protected]

Dear Greg:

Sent by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and electronically

Re: Your letter dated October 31, 2013. Your reference: MC13-001921

Without prejudice

Thank you for your letter dated October 31, 2013. Congratulations on your appointment as Minister. By now you will have settled into your new responsibilities.

The ultimate arbiter of science and the basis for policy on scientific issues is empirical scientific evidence. This letter explains h0w I know factually that you have no empirical scientific evidence of global warming (aka climate change) by carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity. Yet you continue to falsely imply, though carefully not state, that you have such evidence. In public statements you contradict empirical scientific evidence and misrepresent climate and climate science.

Your behaviour explained below deepens my concerns. I offer a constructive solution to build a successful future for you, our country and our precious natural environment.

You say that the government and presumably you take your, quote: “primary advice on climate science from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO”. You further imply that you rely on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

CSIRO, BOM proven to have no empirical scientific evidence of CO2 as cause

It is beyond doubt through documented evidence that both CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have no empirical scientific evidence of human CO2 as causation of global warming that ended in 1995 / 1998. Yet again, I refer you to:

1. CSIRO and BOM responses to my requests under Freedom of Information provisions: they reveal that no senior member of government since 2004 has received any report providing empirical scientific evidence of human causation from BOM and no report at all from CSIRO’s Chief Executive. This is fact and is publicly documented on my web site http://www.conscious.com.au specifically: http://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html Please provide me with copies of reports or advice from CSIRO and BOM on which you rely and that contain specific empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998. If you fail to do so your position is not tenable and you are misleading me, your party, the Prime Minister, our federal parliament and the Australian people;
2. Correspondence from CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark, CSIRO Group Executive‑Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson and BOM Director Dr. Rob Vertessy has been received in response to my requests for empirical scientific evidence of causation. All repeatedly failed to provide such evidence. Instead, all misleadingly imply or state false and/or diversionary claims. These are documented in Appendices 6, 6a and 7 to my report on CSIRO’s flagship report on climate change. Please note examples in Appendix 7 showing BOM manipulated data to fabricate warming from data revealing cooling trends. That report and appendices are at: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
3. Detailed analysis of many CSIRO and BOM reports by me and other independent researchers including internationally eminent climate scientists reveal those reports do not contain empirical scientific evidence for their claim of human CO2 causing warming yet misleadingly imply such evidence. This is documented in Appendix 6: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html;
4. No organisation anywhere in the world has ever presented empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing that human CO2 caused or will cause global warming. Others and I have checked every major scientific body in Australia and in prominent western democracies. All organisations have no such evidence. If they had they would have presented it. They fail to present any;
5. Empirical scientific evidence has been presented to you personally in the logical structure necessary to disprove human causation. That climate data proves beyond doubt that carbon dioxide does not drive climate and that levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are a result of natural temperature variation. Human CO2 production has no material effect and cannot have any effect on temperature or global climate. See enclosed one-page summary (http://bit.ly/1btyTGE) linked to documents presenting empirical scientific evidence gathered worldwide. It includes data on CO2 levels cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC. By claiming human CO2 has an effect you ignore or overrule Henry’s Law;
6. Apparent conflicts of interest by the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr. Megan Clark who previously was on the board of Rothschilds Australia bank and who currently sits on the Advisory Board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Both organisations seek to grab trillions of dollars trading paper CO2 ‘credits’.

You have previously been advised of these facts. By doing nothing you condone corruption of climate science funded by taxpayers. By continuing to knowingly misrepresent climate and science you continue to knowingly endorse that corruption.

Ever heard of ringwoodite? No? Unless you are a professional mineralogist or geologist there’s no need to think you missed something vital. A new finding involving ringwoodite is making the news thanks to claims of hithertounrecognized vast masses of water, deep underground.

New Research

New research published in the journal Nature claims to prove the existence of an “ocean mass of water,” a few hundred miles below the earth’s surface. After years of analysis of a small diamond unearthed in Brazil, the authors conclude that the sample contains an even smaller speck of ringwoodite that in turn contains a yet smaller amount of water molecules bound to it.

So, before you rejoice in the thought of a free hot shower in that new “ocean” deep below, consider some minor details of relevance.

Rocks and Minerals

Rocks are made up of minerals. The rock granite, for example, is an igneous rock, typically comprised of the minerals of quartz, feldspar and mica. In contrast, limestone is a sedimentary rock almost entirely made up of calcium carbonate. The earth’s land mass contains vast quantities of both kinds of rock and all contain some “water.” However, all that water is tightly bound in the rocks and their constituent minerals.

Free vs. Bound Water

At the surface with an atmospheric pressure of one atmosphere, water boils at 100 C (212 F). Even a few hundred miles below the surface where the temperature is more like 700 C (1300 F), that “ocean mass” of water is still tightly bound in the rock. It is not free water which you could pump up or extract without additional energy input.

When pregnant women take anti-depressants, ‘Virtually every study shows increased rates of developmental delay in children,’ says new report. Without a doubt, they’re two of today’s most alarming health trends:

An increasing number of scientists are worried that global cooling, not warming, currently poses the greatest threat to life. To register their growing concerns, scientists are being asked to join a new campaign to help educate the public and policymakers.

At the forefront of the campaign is the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) of Orlando, Florida, a leading independent US climate research company. It is the foremost institution in the United States dedicated to the analysis and planning for the next climate change – forecast to bring decades of record cold weather.

John L. Casey, SSRC President says, “The SSRC possesses the capability to conduct planning and research on how best to prepare individuals, businesses, and governments at all levels for the next climate change to a period of long lasting and potentially dangerous colder weather.”

We probably should have seen this coming. At the Ivanpah solar power plant near Las Vegas, a massive glittering field of 170,000 garage door-sized mirrors reflects sunlight. And all those mirrors are making flying near Ivanpah not so fun—or safe.

The Clark County Department of Aviation sent a letter earlier this week urging the plant’s designers to do something about the glare, reports KCET. The letter included two separate complaints from August 2013, before the plant even opened.

One pilot describes flying near Ivanpah was like “looking into the sun.” An air traffic controller also describes receiving constant complaints but being told, chillingly, that nothing was to be done:

Daily, during the late morning and early afternoon hours we get complaints from pilots of aircraft flying from the northeast to the southwest about the brightness of this solar farm. They usually ask us what it is because they don’t know. On this particular morning, an air carrier complained about the brightness and reiterated that it was “nearly blinding.” I reported this to Management and was told that they were going to do nothing about it. They then suggested that I tell the pilot to report it through the safety reporting system that they have and to report it myself. I have no idea what can be done about this situation, but being a passenger on an aircraft that flew through this airspace and saw it for myself, I would say that something needs to be done. It is extremely bright and distracting.

Aussie skeptics say they have one of their nation’s top climate alarmist professors cornered in an ongoing battle of words over who holds the high ground on scientific integrity. Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.

Their latest target is Professor David Karoly, a climatologist who they claim dishonestly championed a government campaign to depict human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as black smoke, contrary to scientific fact.

Dr Ryan reports, “On 18th February 2014 I sent an email to David Karoly with Marjory Curtis, a retired geologist, as my co-signer. Approximately 180 australian and overseas media outlets, politicians, universities, including their student newspapers, and prominent climate hysteria mongers were openly copied in.”

Ryan and Curtis are among many highly-qualified scientists who, as skeptics of the wrong-headed hysteria over supposed man-made global warming, are fighting to restore scientific integrity.

Dr Curtis says Karoly’s “error” over the CO2 as black smoke “may have been a fortuitous oversight” for the cause of alarmists who some say are trying to dupe the public on the issue.

Judy Curtis has advised Karoly all the correspondence, because of its significance to public policy, will be published as open letters. She says, “We replied 21st February and added in our fellow skeptics. So there are now close to 220 observers for Karoly’s next response. To date we have not heard back, but it is early days yet.” 

Much of the western world assumes electric power to be available 24/7 with an unlimited supply to boot. Indeed, “Hydro” (still) is and was a readily available energy source for every household, office and industry in most of the developed nations.

Open letter challenges minister to come clean and admit global warming alarmism based on fear, not science. Freedom of Information (FoI) results on Australian government climate science (2005-2013) proves no one in Howard or Rudd-Gillard governments received any factual scientific evidence on man-made global warming.

 Independent climate researcher, Malcolm Roberts, issues another in a series of open challenges to Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, proving Hunt has no empirical scientific evidence for cutting human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Open letter published in full (some contact details redacted) below:

Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts.

Haven Road,

Pullenvale QLD  4069

Wednesday, March 19^th, 2014

Gregory-Andrew: Hunt.

Minister for the Environment

PO Box 6022


House of Representatives

Parliament House


Canberra ACT 2600

[email protected]

Dear Greg:

Sent by Registered Post with Delivery Confirmation and electronically

Re: Your letter dated October 31, 2013. Your reference: MC13-001921

Without prejudice

Thank you for your letter dated October 31, 2013. Congratulations on your appointment as Minister. By now you will have settled into your new responsibilities.

The ultimate arbiter of science and the basis for policy on scientific issues is empirical scientific evidence. This letter explains how I know factually that you have no empirical scientific evidence of global warming (aka climate change) by carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activity. Yet you continue to falsely imply, though carefully not state, that you have such evidence. In public statements you contradict empirical scientific evidence and misrepresent climate and climate science.

Your behaviour explained below deepens my concerns. I offer a constructive solution to build a successful future for you, our country and our precious natural environment.

You say that the government and presumably you take your, quote: “primary advice on climate science from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO”. You further imply that you rely on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

CSIRO, BOM proven to have no empirical scientific evidence of CO2 as cause

It is beyond doubt through documented evidence that both CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) have no empirical scientific evidence of human CO2 as causation of global warming that ended in 1995 / 1998. Yet again, I refer you to:

1. CSIRO and BOM responses to my requests under Freedom of Information provisions: they reveal that no senior member of government since 2004 has received any report providing empirical scientific evidence of human causation from BOM and no report at all from CSIRO’s Chief Executive. This is fact and is publicly documented on my web site http://www.conscious.com.au specifically: http://www.conscious.com.au/letters.html Please provide me with copies of reports or advice from CSIRO and BOM on which you rely and that contain specific empirical scientific evidence showing human CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest cyclic global atmospheric warming from 1976 to 1998. If you fail to do so your position is not tenable and you are misleading me, your party, the Prime Minister, our federal parliament and the Australian people;
2. Correspondence from CSIRO’s Chief Executive Dr. Megan Clark, CSIRO Group Executive‑Environment Dr. Andrew Johnson and BOM Director Dr. Rob Vertessy has been received in response to my requests for empirical scientific evidence of causation. All repeatedly failed to provide such evidence. Instead, all misleadingly imply or state false and/or diversionary claims. These are documented in Appendices 6, 6a and 7 to my report on CSIRO’s flagship report on climate change. Please note examples in Appendix 7 showing BOM manipulated data to fabricate warming from data revealing cooling trends. That report and appendices are at: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html
3. Detailed analysis of many CSIRO and BOM reports by me and other independent researchers including internationally eminent climate scientists reveal those reports do not contain empirical scientific evidence for their claim of human CO2 causing warming yet misleadingly imply such evidence. This is documented in Appendix 6: http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html;
4. No organisation anywhere in the world has ever presented empirical scientific evidence and logical scientific reasoning showing that human CO2 caused or will cause global warming. Others and I have checked every major scientific body in Australia and in prominent western democracies. All organisations have no such evidence. If they had they would have presented it. They fail to present any;
5. Empirical scientific evidence has been presented to you personally in the logical structure necessary to disprove human causation. That climate data proves beyond doubt that carbon dioxide does not drive climate and that levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere are a result of natural temperature variation. Human CO2 production has no material effect and cannot have any effect on temperature or global climate. See enclosed one-page summary (http://bit.ly/1btyTGE) linked to documents presenting empirical scientific evidence gathered worldwide. It includes data on CO2 levels cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC. By claiming human CO2 has an effect you ignore or overrule Henry’s Law;
6. Apparent conflicts of interest by the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr. Megan Clark who previously was on the board of Rothschilds Australia bank and who currently sits on the Advisory Board of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Both organisations seek to grab trillions of dollars trading paper CO2 ‘credits’.

You have previously been advised of these facts. By doing nothing you condone corruption of climate science funded by taxpayers. By continuing to knowingly misrepresent climate and science you continue to knowingly endorse that corruption.

200 YEARS OF PERSECUTIONS AND LIES AGAINST SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM BY THE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT

If we asked all the scientists in the world about the most important good in their activity, no doubt most of them would indicate scientific freedom on top of the list.

Scientific freedom is the quintessence of scientific activity, in the same way as water is the most important element for fishes. It is also a “corollary” of science itself, because no new scientific discovery can be made, without the possibility to freely study and investigate (freedom of thought)  and then discuss, compare, disclose  and publish scientific results (freedom of the press). In 1958 the Hungarian (then naturalized British and member of the Royal Society) scientist Michael Polanyi, became famous with his book: “Personal Knowledge”, in which he refuted the common view that scientific method is something “objective” and “neutral”, on the contrary he pointed out that scientists are normally following personal passions before deciding which problems and scientific facts deserve to be investigated.

Therefore – Polanyi argued – just a liberal system which can guarantee total freedom “to pursue science for its own sake” (as opposed to a conception in which science should be instrumental to pursue “social needs”, i.e. contaminated by political evaluations) can be suggested as a way to allow  total and real scientific freedom.

However, scientific freedom today, in a world dominated by powerful government, business, media and lobby groups, is far from having been reached.

Although today it is not so common as in the past that a scientist is subject to physical violence (as Ignac Semmelweis was in XIX century), there are many ways by which today the scientific establishment can silence and marginalize inconvenient scientists. 

Open Letter to AMA on Their Position Statement: Wind Farms & Health 2014

 March 18, 2014

AMA President Dr Steve Hambleton
Vice President Professor Geoffrey Dobb
All members of AMA Federal Council

OPEN LETTER  

RE POSITION STATEMENT ON WIND “FARM” INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND HEALTH 

Dear AMA Federal Office Bearers, 

As I have not received a response to a detailed email sent to the AMA President and the Vice President 4 days ago concerning the AMA’s position statement on wind “farms” and health, this is an open letter to you all.  

This matter is of considerable and increasing national and international interest, especially to rural residents whose health has been severely adversely impacted by existing wind turbine developments, some of whom have been forced from their homes because of the serious adverse health impacts on themselves and their families.  

Do Federal AMA members realize that there are no studies showing there are no adverse health effects on a local population after installation of a wind development, and there are no longitudinal studies which show there are still no adverse health effects after 25 years?  

In other words, product safety has NOT been established, despite industry assertions to the contrary. 

Rather, a literature review conducted by two public health physicians in Rural Ontario, Drs Lynn and Arra, found that all the studies they identified showed evidence of what they called “human distress”. A powerpoint of their literature review findings is available here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/association-between-wind-turbine-noise-and-human-distress/ and some of those studies were also included in the recent NHMRC Literature Review. 

Please give these issues your urgent attention and provide detailed answers to the following questions. Your answers will be made publicly available.

Content of the public statement 

Where is the research, conducted inside the homes of the residents reporting the serious repetitive sleep disturbance, the physiological stress, and other symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome”, which confirms that these symptoms are caused by anxiety from alleged scaremongering as your AMA position statement asserts, RATHER than pulsatile infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines, which Dr Neil Kelley and his NASA research colleagues established was the DIRECT cause of these “annoyance” symptoms in 1985 in a major US government funded research project in the USA? 

This pattern of symptoms of so called “annoyance” reported by residents today is identical to that documented so carefully some 30 years ago by Dr Neil Kelley, in a large collaborativeNASA and aeronautical engineering acoustic field survey in the USA, followed by a laboratory study, funded by the US Department of Energy. If members of the AMA Federal Council are not familiar with those landmark studies which have been known to the wind energy industry since 1987, details are available from the following document (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/ ).  

Are you suggesting that Kelley and NASA were wrong? Given the way the global wind industry reacted to change the design of the turbines from downwind bladed to upwind bladed to reduce these health and sleep damaging frequencies, it is clear that industry believed this research was important and credible. 

There is no research demonstrating that the reported health effects in residents living near wind turbines are due to anxiety caused by “scaremongering”, and this was acknowledged in the recent NHMRC literature review. The only misinformation being peddled is by the wind industry, and now by your organization’s position statement. 

Why have you repeated the lies of the wind industry that the levels of infrasound inside and outside homes are well below the thresholds of perception? Kelley et al established in 1985 that wind turbine generated impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise could be perceived at levels where it was not audible. The design of the turbine is immaterial to this human perception response – the frequencies generated by horizontal axis wind turbines, downwind or upwind bladed, are still being perceived by the human guinea pigs inside and outside their homes, nearly 30 years later. 

This ability to perceive infrasound pressure pulses or peaks is precisely what independent Australian acoustician Les Huson detected in his acoustic field research at Macarthur in 2013, with resident Andrew Gardner who was experiencing distressing “pressure bolt sensations” whilst sitting peacefully inside his home at night, which correlated remarkably well 86{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the time with the pressure peak transients Mr Huson’s monitor was detecting, to which Mr Gardner was “blinded” at the time he was recording his symptoms.

Good news! As I predicted four years ago, alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s gambit of using the courts to silence debate about his faked “hockey stick” graph is backfiring spectacularly. 17 mainstream media outlets now agree Mann should put up or shut up.

Back in April 2010 I prophetically penned, “Is Michael Mann Seriously Off his Head?” detailing the legal pitfalls the odious Professor Mann faced if he sued anyone for “defaming” him. Back then I pointed out that:

“If Mann takes a punt in the courts then his meta data and source codes used in his graphs are germane. The rules of discovery are clear; the respondents will be entitled to full disclosure of any and all evidence pertaining to the issues so that the trier of fact may determine the credibility of the allegations.”

I recently pointed out the fatal technical legal flaw in Mann’s case against Dr Tim Ball (skeptic climatologist). Mark Steyn (the writer also being sued by the litigious Mann), the mainstream press and others are playing catch up and cottoning on to the inescapable legal realities. Steyn, like Ball, has been sued for daring to question why any scientist who claims his work proves the planet is in great danger, won’t show us his proof.

Four years ago I brazenly challenged Mann to do his worst when I wrote:

“Unless the dodgy Penn. State professor divulges his computer codes that underpin his junk science no civil court will entertain him. Barking out his toothless threats scares no one. This fraudster is now a figure of ridicule and is set to go down in history as one of science’s worst abominations. I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game.”

Needless to say, four years on and I’ve not been sued, nor do I expect to be.

Hotshot lawyer to disgraced climate scientist Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann faces accusations of misrepresentation as a critical global warming lawsuit against a prominent Canadian critic, Dr Tim Ball continues to unravel.

Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, a leading expert in Canadian libel law, was reported recently as dismissing damning claims by John O’Sullivan, a writer/publisher and known associate of the internationally popular Tim Ball. McConchie is reported to have ridiculed claims by O’Sullivan that he is a party in the protracted three-year lawsuit at the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver. But O’Sullivan insists he does contractually hold a huge financial stake in the case. So, what gives?

The question is: did McConchie actually make any such a statement, and if he did, is it factually correct? (If he didn’t say any such thing then those who promulgate the lie should apologize).

First, a little background:

If Ball wins this case then it will likely become the most important science lawsuit since the notorious Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. The issues being litigated go to the heart of which scientists are lying about man-made global warming.  Professor Mann of Pennsylvania State University is a high profile alarmist; he says his science proves humans are dangerously changing earth’s climate. Dr Ball, a retired university professor and skeptic, says much of the ‘science’ is fudged and some deliberately faked to obscure the actual truth that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have little, if any, impact on climate.

O’Sullivan has been embroiled in this multi-million dollar legal battle from the start. Ball and O’Sullivan were regularly-published contributors to the Canada Free Press (CFP) site that ran Ball’s now famous article declaring that the Penn. State professor belonged in “the state pen, not Penn. State.” This was a reference to Mann’s unethical (possibly criminal) actions relating to hidden metadata for his discredited 1998 ‘hockey stick’ graph that purportedly proved human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide were dangerously warming the planet.

Ball’s article caused a storm and CFP capitulated to a “take down” notice of legal threats from McConchie. Articles written by O’Sullivan and Ball disappeared from the site and McConchie filed Mann’s lawsuit.

Since 2010 O’Sullivan had collaborated with Ball and in his own right become an effective advocate against climate alarmism. He set up the ‘Slayers’ group of global warming skeptics and Dr Ball joined as lead author of the ground-breaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ The book inspired the founding of the increasingly prominent organisation, Principia Scientific International (PSI) that champions scientific ethics and openness and transparency by researchers in key fields that impact public policy.

From the outset one of the key ‘junk science’ targets of the group was Mann and his dodgy graph. They had been iconic symbols in the highly-influential 2001 UN report on man-made global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which then went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize (not science prize, we should add!). Ball’s sensational new book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science;’ shows why the UN IPCC is nothing more and nothing less than a politically contrived organisation.

As O’Sullivan predicted from the outset, Mann’s litigation was to serve as nothing more than a cynical SLAPP suit designed to tie up Ball for years and chill public debate.

One thing that will never change – human beings are each unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God – “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When designing any kind of health care system, this truth must be paramount.Our present health care system developed from gradual improvements in individual treatment. As observation, testing and research revealed common pathways to treatment, companies rose to offer new technologies, equipment and devices to make treatment safer, better and less intrusive. In most cases, this has worked to meet the hurting individual’s needs.

I’m all for gathering data, comparative analysis and whatever technology can bring to the fight against disease and misery. My life was certainly spared 8 years ago after a stage 4 diagnosis leading to a cure from Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. I get uncomfortable with “group-think” when it comes to health care. The exceptions are where population groups share a similar malady that can be dealt with communally. In the case of employer provided health insurance, the typical company has a diverse population and is a proper subsidiary link in the chain.

Microsoft and GE have seldom demonstrated a bottom up view of anything they do, including pushing that horrendous Common Core and moving health care equipment manufacturing to China. Since they are dealing with products and technology it is their proper role to serve the individual through the various subsidiary levels of health care.

The true definition of Capitalism is in High-Finance’s role as the servant of Science, Commerce, and Investment in vision and courage; in personal and family savings and philanthropy! Science can advance, when a Capitalist is convinced to help for profit and the common good. Totalitarians have a penchant for integrity-compromising pre-conceived outcomes to advance their power.

My theory is far from scientific, rather a road map for long term scientific accomplishment for the greatest number of individuals working in the chaos of human interaction.

About two years ago, I started seeing a series of causes and effects in human interaction that first sparked my imagination in the political arena, then in the debate between social and equal justice, and most recently in the field of science. There are three groups of three philosophical ideas that suddenly fell in like a Conga Line. Their plausibility is easily seem when starting with finance and ending with beauty or the reverse, starting with beauty and ending with finance. The end results are dramatically opposite.

P = Σ(T+A+O) [1]

1. The quality or state of being relative.

2. A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

Executive Summary

The Science Theory of Functional Relativity is an exercise in realignment of political and philosophical priorities. The purpose is to clear the way for greater freedom to explore, discover, and develop new ideas; and to improve on the older ones. These processes have their own trials and challenges. It shouldn’t be necessary for the government and financiers to stand in the way of real achievement, that both will ultimately profit from.

Scientific advancement has always required inquisitive, visionary and persistent explorers, experimentors and developers, who can draw from the wealth of discovery from those who went before. They require an environment where exploration and experimentation can take place within the bounds of human dignity.