Comments on the SA EPA Waterloo Wind Farm

Environmental Noise Study 2013

The following document is an analysis of the recent “Waterloo Wind Farm Environmental Noise Study” conducted by the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (SA EPA). Overall, the report is well- written and reflects awareness of current international guidelines on low frequency noise and infrasound.

The use of specialised low frequency microphones and multi-layered windshields (in some cases) indicates that attempts have been made to ensure that the infrasound and low frequency noise is measured as accurately as possible. The inclusion of local weather station data, indoor measurement data and noise diary entries shows that there has also been an attempt to surpass the baseline requirements of the EPA guidelines. Finally, the large amount of information in the report has been succinctly summarised in tables and figures. 

On the other hand, the EPA found “no evidence linking the noise from the wind farm to adverse impacts on residents” and there are several reasons why this conclusion may have been reached erroneously. These include certain limitations of the current guidelines as well as aspects of the study that could have been improved. In some cases, interpretation of the data has led to generalisations that are not well backed up by the supporting figures. 

It is clear that the study undertaken by the EPA was comprehensive and complex. There are many ways of analysing and interpreting the data and the comments below are intended only to indicate the areas where I believe the analysis and interpretation could be improved.

In a paper dated the 22nd of January 2014, bearing the title ‘Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes’, Stephen Hawking has not claimed that black holes don’t exist. He has proposed that the event horizons of alleged black holes do not exist and that only apparent horizons form when gravitational collapse of a body such as a star produces a black hole.

He’s proposed his black hole apparent horizon in an attempt to prove that there are no black hole firewalls. Hawking retains all other alleged properties of black holes and still invokes quantum theory to claim that black holes evaporate by means of Hawking radiation. With his newfangled notions Hawking seeks to now redefine black holes. He says in his paper that,
“The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity.

There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field.”

Note that Hawking alludes here to the existence of black hole escape velocity. It’s routinely claimed on the one hand that black holes have an escape velocity and that this escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light in vacuum. It you toss a ball into the air, does it escape from the Earth? No. Does it leave the surface of the Earth? Yes; it goes up and then comes back down. So escape velocity doesn’t mean that matter can’t leave, only that it can’t escape if its launch speed is less than the escape speed.

Consulting the Collins Encyclopædia of the Universe published in 2001 we find; 

“black hole A massive object so dense that no light or any other radiation can escape from it; its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.” 

Similarly, from the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics and Astronomy, published in 2001;

“black hole A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light  
So it’s claimed that black holes have an escape velocity. However, on the other hand, it’s also routinely claimed that black holes suck matter in so that matter can only go into a black hole and nothing can come out of it, including light. The black hole event horizon is said to be a one-way membrane, a boundary, from which nothing can even leave.

In his book ‘The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe’, published in 2002, Hawking says:

“I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.”

Professor Joss Bland-Hawthorn is a professor of astrophysics at the Institute of Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney. In a televised interview on station ABC1 he told us that:

“A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes …”  (Bland-Hawthorn 2013)

So it’s routinely claimed that black holes both have and do not have an escape velocity at the same time. But that’s impossible. Moreover, if the escape velocity of a black hole is the speed of light and light travels at the speed of light, then light must escape. However, Bland-Hawthorn assures us that because the escape speed of a black hole is that of light, light can’t escape!

It’s also important to note that escape velocity is an implicit two-body relation; one body escapes from another body. There’s no meaning to escape velocity in a model of the Universe that contains only one mass, and such a model bears no relation to reality anyhow. But all alleged black holes are universes which contain only one mass. Despite this, proponents of black holes and big bangs allege untold numbers of black holes present in an expanding big bang universe.

Now there are four alleged types of black hole universes and there are three alleged types of big bang universes. However, proponents of black holes and big bangs never specify what type of black hole in what type of big bang they allege. For instance, it’s claimed that there is a black hole at Sgt A*. What type of black hole in what type of big bang universe pertains to Sgt A*? They never say. This is always the case.

Dr. Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and his colleagues have for years claimed that there is a big black hole at Sagittarius A* (Sgt A*).  They made such claims in 2008 in this online report:  
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html#comments

In 2013 Gillessen continued to expound on the alleged black hole at Sgt A* in these online reports:  http://www.krone.at/Wissen/Schwarzes_Loch_in_der_Milchstrasse_zerfetzt_Gaswolk e-Kosmisches_Drama-Story-369073  
http://derstandard.at/1373512915711/Supermassereiches-Schwarzes-Loch- verwandelt-Gaswolke-in-Spaghetti  

However, on 21st December 2008 Gillessen admitted in writing (Crothers 2009) that not only is the notion of black hole escape velocity nonsense, but also that he and his colleagues had not in fact found a black hole at Sgt A*, and that nobody had ever found a black hole anywhere. Nonetheless, despite these admissions, Gillessen continues to claim a black hole at Sgt A*. Furthermore, Gillessen (2012) was awarded an ERC Starting Grant to continue studies of the alleged black hole at Sgt A*.

Of course, Gillessen and his colleagues are not the only astronomers to have claimed that there is a black hole at Sgt A*.  It is quite a common false claim.

Hawking’s latest paper really changes nothing because each and every alleged type of black hole and each and every alleged type of big bang are different and independent universes which can’t be blended in order to manufacture multiple black holes in some big bang universe. In his paper Hawking refers to an asymptotically curved black hole universe – the so-called ‘Schwarzschild anti de Sitter’ universe. This universe is asymptotically anti de Sitter spacetime. Hawking also mentions the Kerr black hole universe. The Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordstrom, Kerr and Kerr-Newman black hole universes are all asymptotically flat universes. 

Consider this – all alleged black hole universes:

(1) are spatially infinite, (2) are eternal, (3) contain only one mass, (4) are not expanding, (5) and are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

However, all alleged big bang universes:

(1) are either spatially finite (in one case) or spatially infinite (in two different cases), (2) are of finite age, (3) contain radiation and many masses, (4) are expanding, (5) and are not asymptotically anything.

It’s now plainly evident that all alleged black hole universes contradict all alleged big bang universes and so they can’t coexist – they’re mutually exclusive by their very definitions. In fact, no alleged black hole universe can be blended with any alleged big bang universe, with other black hole universes, or with itself. Similarly, no alleged big bang universe can be blended with any alleged black hole universe, with any other big bang universe, or with itself. This is easily reaffirmed by the Principle of Superposition.

General Relativity is a nonlinear theory. Consequently, in General Relativity, the Principle of Superposition is invalid. For example, let X be some alleged black hole universe and let Y be some alleged big bang universe. Then the linear combination or superposition X + Y is not a universe, because the Principle of Superposition doesn’t hold in General Relativity. Moreover, X and Y pertain to entirely different sets of Einstein field equations and so they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

Presumably Hawking has still retained his big bang dogma with his latest black holes. So he still has unspecified types of black holes all over the place inside some unspecified big bang expanding universe, notwithstanding that black hole universes and big bang universes can’t be superposed. Superposition violates the mathematical structure of the General Theory of Relativity. Consequently, Hawking’s latest paper is just as nonsensical as all his previous writings on black holes and big bangs. 

There is a serious problem with modern physics, particularly astrophysics and particle physics. Many experiments are now one-off, and cost billions of dollars. It is impossible for these experiments to be replicated by independent scientists in different laboratories. Science rightly proceeds by experiments, and replication of experiments by different people in different laboratories is absolutely necessary in order to confirm or refute some reported experimental finding.

Nowadays one group of scientists carries out an experiment with apparatus that costs the public purse huge sums of money. Independent scientists do not have access to such sums of money in order to conduct their own experiments and do not have access to the equipment that some group of scientists preferentially associated with that equipment has.

The reports of a group of scientists whose experiments can’t be replicated by any independent party do not constitute a substantiated scientific finding. Nevertheless, science now hinges on what some particular group of scientists merely alleges, without any possibility of independent experimental verification. The public at large is falsely led to believe that such isolated experiments are definitive. They aren’t.  

 
REFERENCES  
Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/new-research-sheds-more-light-on- black-holes/4979088  Collins Encyclopædia of the Universe, Harper Collins Publishers, London, 2001 Crothers, S., Supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A*, 2009, www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/dialogue.pdf Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, Matzner, R. A., Ed., CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, LA, (2001) Gillessen, S., Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., New Observations Detail Milky Way’s Big Black Hole,  December 9, 2008,  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html#comments  Gillessen, S., ERC Starting Grant for Stefan Gillessen, November 5, 2012,  http://www.mpe.mpg.de/980185/News_20121105 Gillessen, S., Schwarzes Loch in der Milchstrae zerfetzt Gaswolke, 17 July, 2013,  http://www.krone.at/Wissen/Schwarzes_Loch_in_der_Milchstrasse_zerfetzt_Gaswolke- Kosmisches_Drama-Story-369073 Gillessen, S., Supermassereiches Schwarzes Loch verwandelt Gaswolke in “Spaghetti”, 20 July, 2013,  http://derstandard.at/1373512915711/Supermassereiches-Schwarzes-Loch-verwandelt- Gaswolke-in-Spaghetti Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe (New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, (2002) Hawking, S. W., Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, 22 January 2014,   http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761  

Basic climate questions

People who care enough to attempt to understand climate quickly learn it’s not a five-minute conversation. Climate is complex and has become polarising. This summary assists people who respect and care about our natural environment and humanity, our country and economy, and our future security.

The summary quickly provide a feel for key climate issues alive today. The summary stimulates thinking and consciousness and provides reassurance. It was made with assistance from many volunteers including leading international climate scientists. We hope it assists people to understand how to live in harmony and peace with our planet and Nature and to choose to appreciate and connect with the amazing species to which we belong.

It’s supported by the 25-page report entitled ‘CSIROh!’ and 780 pages of details in 32 appendices http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh!.html or Google “CSIROH”. Appendices include hundreds of references and links to empirical scientific evidence, papers, articles, statistics, documented facts and books for easy checking. Figures below in parentheses refer to Appendix number.

The report was prepared using letters to and from prominent government agencies, academics, Lead Authors and contributors to UN climate reports and Members of Parliament. It’s supported by results from a Freedom of Information request on CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). Academics, all Members of federal Parliament, CSIRO, BOM, prominent UN climate advocates and journalists were invited in writing to specify errors in my report.

As an ever-increasing number of independent scientists and researchers are coming forward to question some of the entrenched beliefs of consensus science, some leading thinkers are gathering in Austria to discuss the hottest issues.

Among the speakers is Stephen J Crothers who will be giving an address on ‘Black Holes and Big Bangs – a Fantastic Voyage.’

Abstract: Black holes are ubiquitous. They are now both invisible and visible. Quasars are black holes; so are the “blazars”. There are black hole binary systems, including ultra-quantum luminous x-ray sources. Individual black holes are also x-ray sources. It is claimed that each galaxy harbours a supermassive black hole at its centre, along with other black holes dispersed throughout them. Wormholes are said to be two quantum-entangled black holes. All these black holes supposedly exist in an expanding big bang universe. However, black hole universes are inconsistent with big bang universes. All alleged black hole universes are spatially infinite, eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are either spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are “primordial”), are expanding and are not asymptotically anything. Thus the black hole and the big bang contradict one another – they are mutually exclusive by their very definitions.

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to break records. Extent at 31st January, of 4.540 million sq km, beat the previous record set in 2008. This is 26{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} higher than the climatological average for this date of 3.598 million sq km.

(Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.htmlhttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html )

Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Club’s co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,

All life on earth depends on CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere. Its concentration is currently around 400 ppm (parts per million) or 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Life would cease to exist if the CO2 level were to drop to half of that. At 200 ppm, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would be too small for most plants to take up the CO2 and convert it to plant matter.

But isn’t the government telling you that CO2 is just about the greatest villain of modern times?  Isn’t it true that CO2 is near the “tipping point” of causing runaway “climate change?”

Natural CO2

The earth has had CO2 in its atmosphere forever. In fact, many million years ago, its level was much higher; ten to 100 times higher than now. All that natural CO2 came from volcanoes and smaller volcanic vents all over the globe. Of course, nature has not stopped producing that, not at all. At any time, a couple of dozen volcanoes are really active somewhere around the world, but even when they are “dormant” many emit massive amounts of volcanic gases all the time. That’s where all the natural CO2 in our atmosphere has come from ever since the earth was created.

European Court of Justice condemns EPAW

Armed groups have more rights than wind farm victims

Can anyone doubt that climate is changing? No, because that is what climate does. The weather is changing. As I wake up in the morning I look out at the brook and the level of the water, particularly now as there are flood warnings everywhere. I look at the sky – is it overcast or clear? I watch the news on television, paying particular attention to the weather forecast.

I do not need to be persuaded that the weather is changing, because I can see it with my own eyes, and as climate is defined as the average of weather in a particular location, I am also persuaded that my local climate, my microclimate, is also changing.   Is there such a thing as world climate? Well, there certainly is not one world climate – such an item simply does not exist. At this very moment in time, forest fires are raging in southeast Australia, fanned by great winds, which now threatens Melbourne itself. While Melbourne swelters, almost the entire United States of America and Canada is snowbound.

The severity of the weather is on every news channel, such as CNN and Fox. In the United Kingdom we have had now 6 weeks of storms and the most severe flooding that most of us have ever known. Europe is likewise afflicted. Indonesia at the other end of the earth is also experiencing floods and also volcanic eruptions. So, yes, there are climate changes everywhere – too many to mention – but is there one world climate? On the evidence, there is no such thing.   

I must admit I am completely confused by the apparent contradictory and unphysical claims of Dr Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts (WUWT). The source of this confusion is twofold and explained below.

•         Is glass “opaque” to infra-red radiation as is often quoted by these two experts writing articles on the “greenhouse effect”?
•         What does glass is “opaque” to IR even mean?

One simplistic claim that one hears with regular monotony is that because “Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light…” therefore glass enclosures “trap” IR radiation.

So I did some research on the matter. Firstly let me present some public statements from Spencer and Watts readers should verify for themselves:

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

“Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.  By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.”

1.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
2.     “A real greenhouse physically traps warm air, preventing convective air currents from carrying warm air out of the greenhouse, which would then be replaced by cooler air coming into the greenhouse.”

   “In contrast, the infrared atmospheric greenhouse effect instead slows the rate at which the atmosphere cools radiatively, not convectively.”
   
   http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

3.      Comments:

Anonymous says:
 August 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
 August 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

Do Spencer and Watts not know what they really mean and is there any hope they will find common understanding of radiative physics? At the moment, it seems confusion reigns supreme.

Anthony Watts says:

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

Dr Roy Spencer disagrees:

“A real greenhouse physically traps warm air …”

But Dr Roy Spencer also agrees – thus disagreeing with himself :-

“NO. Do not confuse the two. A real greenhouse uses solar, and its glass windows are opaque to IR transfer. I’m talking about nighttime radiative cooling through an IR-transparent aperture.”

So – what does the statement – “its glass windows are opaque to IR transfer” even mean?

Well let’s try to shed some light on the matter.

Firstly we need make it clear that it is a meaningless generalisation and educated people should know better than to make public statements that are incorrect.

Glass is definitely not “opaque” to all wavelengths of “IR light”

The curves show the transmittance of “soda-lime”, “Pyrex”, “UV” and “Fused Silica” glass.

Even I can see that below 4 micrometres all of the glass has a high transmittance of wavelengths that correspond to infra-red.  Soda-lime glass from the manufacturer that supplied the transmittance curve shown allows over 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} transmittance over 4 micrometres wavelengths.

Anthony Watts has so confused the belief that –

“Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light ..” –

to completely incorrectly conclude that –

“By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid,…” –

He implies, incorrectly, it is impossible for IR to be the cause of any heating effect on the CO2 contained in the glass jars.

This is, of course, not supported by real science and is simply another misguided generalisation. Of course the IR from the “IR heat lamps” used in Al Gore’s Physics 101 can penetrate the glass bell jars and heat the CO2 inside by IR radiation absorption.

I know this is entirely possible – a real analysis says it is possible – so here goes.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM).

Using Wien’s law we calculate the temperatures of λ_peak for each wavelength

2.7 µM – Wien’s law λ_peak is at temperature of 800.18 degrees C.

4.3 µM – Wien’s law λ_peak is at temperature of 400.8 degrees C.

15 µM – Wien’s law λ_peak is at temperature of -80 degrees C.

I have absolutely no doubt that the filament of an infra-red “heat” lamp is easily capable of producing the temperatures necessary to emit the 2.7 µM and 4.3 µM radiation wavelengths that CO2 strongly absorbs.  We’ll ignore the 15 µM band as unlikely for many obvious reasons.

Thus Anthony Watts’ claim – “Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared” and that this “By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid” depends entirely on whether glass is “opaque” at the frequencies necessary to cause any radiation absorption heating of CO2 contained in the glass jars.

Simple perusal of the transmittance curves clearly shows that wavelengths close to 2.7 µM pass through various types of glass at levels of 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} or more – it seems only fused silica glass is “opaque” at this frequency.  Some of the 4.3  µM is transmitted significantly for the “soda-lime” glass.

I’m not implying that Anthony Watts’ analysis of Al Gore’s Physics 101 experiment did not establish there were irregularities.

I am saying however that his generalised statement about glass preventing any IR heating effect because glass blocks IR is not supported by fact. The evidence presented here indicates it is entirely possible to observe an IR heating effect of CO2 contained in a glass jar and crude generalisation statements such as –

“Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light ..” – are not helpful to any public discussion as they give a false impression.

And this leads to – What does glass is “opaque” to IR even mean?

We have seen from the transmittance curves above that most types of glass absorb wavelengths above 4 – 5 µM.

But does this mean that glass “traps” infra-red radiation?

Of course not and again the proponents of this nonsense have made a gross misrepresentation of the facts. A simple search of the values for the emissivity coefficient values for glass demonstrates this radiation “trapping” ability is sheer nonsense.

The Engineering Toolbox lists the following:

Glass smooth              0.92 – 0.94

Glass, pyrex                0.85 – 0.95.

Hell, for the wavelengths where glass is “opaque” to the transmission of IR the stuff is almost a damn blackbody!

In the kitchen, eggs and ice don’t mix too well but in map-making they do; more specifically in preparing charts of ice coverage, commonly also known as “egg charts.”

Ice on Lakes

In areas with extended periods of cold weather, the surface of lakes tends to freeze over at such times. Then people will venture out onto the ice as if it were solid rock. For many communities in the far north the only way to bring in supplies of large and heavy items is via winter ice roads across the many frozen lakes as there are no access roads over land.

Even with ice a few feet thick, a heavy 18-wheel truck will add enough weight to depress the ice at its location when crossing a frozen-over lake. As a result, such trucks are constantly going uphill then.

The main question though is whether the ice is strong enough to support the additional local weight. Of course, that depends both on the thickness and firmness of the ice, and applies equally to a man walking or a truck driving across it.

For these and other reasons, knowledge of ice coverage and its properties at any given time can be critical. Ice “egg charts” help to provide that information in a simple manner.

Egg Charts

Egg charts provide detailed information on ice coverage, ice thickness, density, strength and current trends. Such charts have been used for decades and are provided, free of charge, by various government agencies including the U.S. National Ice Center and Environment Canada for the Great Lakes and other areas with significant seasonal ice coverage.

A recent egg chart is given below. It shows the eastern Great Lakes, including the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario as well as parts of the St. Lawrence River and connecting waterways.

As you can see, at the date (Jan. 30, 2014) Lake Erie (at the bottom of the chart) is covered with ice at 9/10^th or higher throughout and Lake Huron with Georgian Bay (top of chart) by well over 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of its entire area. In contrast, the deep Lake Ontario (on the right) is essentially still free of ice except for its shallower near-shore areas.

While the colors in this graph indicate the major sub-areas and their ice cover are easy to read, the numerous “eggs” spread along the sides give detailed information on the exact state of the ice in each area. They provide more in-depth information on the details of ice strength and cohesion. The grey areas indicate “fast ice” that is a solid uninterrupted ice cover attached to land.

The Egg Code

The egg code is a standardized representation of the ice in various parts of the Great Lakes as well as sea-ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, though it is somewhat different for the sea-ice.

As ever more scientists affirm Earth is now into a natural cooling cycle, some mainstream media outlets are still stuck on the discredited imaginary man-made global warming narrative. In response to reader request, we outline below the scientific evidence in an open letter intended for those ill-informed journalists. Feel free to share.

You may have noticed, the media is reporting a steady stream of “new science” that turns everything you knew topsy-turvy. What was known to be good for you is suddenly touted as bad and vice-versa. The latest news is just one of many examples of that kind and this one involves anti-oxidants.

Anti-Oxidants

Anti-oxidants (AOs) is a term for a variety of substances (dare I say the word chemicals) which occur naturally in most plants and so are a part of our daily food.  AOs include vitamins like Vitamin C (VC) which has long been recognized as a vital (therefore the term “vitamin”) food ingredient to keep you healthy.

VC was the first of such substances to be discovered, though not recognized at the time. The prevention of scurvy by eating fresh fruits and vegetables was described more than 2,000 years ago by Hippocrates (c. 460 BC–c. 380 BC). The British navy “re-discovered” it in the 18th century and modern science found ways to make it synthetically from natural sugars.

Other important anti-oxidants are carotene type compounds found in most veggies and fruits. In fact, the term carotene is derived from the name of the vegetable plant carrot. So, what’s the new science on anti-oxidants about then?

There is likely no life learning experience as instructive as a Near Death Experience. When the NDE involves an uncommon encounter with the unseen power of a common, everyday occurrence, CLOUDS. Seen from afar, cumulus clouds are benign giant puffs of cotton balls floating across the sky. While you can notice slight changes in shape, you have no real understanding of the real forces at work within.

For several years, I have been joined by the world’s top scientists in an effort to expose Carbon Climate Forcing as the worst science in history. We have employed the full range of scientific arguments, and yet the myth persists, that Carbon Dioxide and it’s accomplice, water vapor, WARM the Earth. There is nothing like first-hand experience to dispel a myth.

Just released in the Journal of Geophysical Research is an article on the “ground breaking report on clouds causing cooling” [1]. After arguing just this point in dozens of articles over the last several years, it is time to share my personal anecdote on the behavior of water vapor INSIDE of a cloud.

Vincent Gray’s recent contribution on ‘The Scientific Method’ prompts me to respond with an extended set of points on Karl Popper’s ideas. My first article for PSI addressing Popper’s work is found here.

It is refreshing to see reference to the work of Peter Medawar who seems to be neglected by today’s commentators on science including climate science. He has much to say of sound common sense and in my view climate scientists and their fellow travelers (on all sides) would do well to try to take from his writings something of his spirit and humanity.

It is good also to see emphasis on the lessons Karl Popper teaches us but again on Principia Scientific, important parts of his ideas are poorly presented and I feel it is important to keep making points of argument which at first sight may appear pedantic but which, in fact, are pivotal to a proper understanding of Popper’s philosophy and to a proper appreciation of how the empirical science should be conducted.

Vincent presents a set of diagrams that illustrate what he calls the ‘methods approved by Popper”. In fact Popper, to my knowledge, made no such approval and was most clear that for him there was no scientific method. He did prescribe the method of conjecture and refutation as the way to eliminate error.