Principia Scientific International’s affiliated organisation (OMSJ) once again is compelled to show it has legal teeth by going to trial to put a halt to ongoing defamation and business disparagement.

The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ) reports the matter as follows:

OMSJ Files Trademark Complaint Against AIDS Activist

(September 11, 2013, Austin, Texas) A Texas federal judge has set a January 2015 trial date in the case of OMSJ v. DeShong.  The federal lawsuit brought by Clark Baker, founder of the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ), seeks to halt ongoing defamation and business disparagement by Jeffrey Todd DeShong, a Ft. Worth AIDS activist and blogger and to abate DeShong’s use of Plaintiffs’ federally protected trademark.

A non-profit investigative agency, OMSJ provides medical, scientific, and legal support to the defense of those charged with criminal or civil offenses related to HIV and other diseases.  OMSJ has been involved in more than 100 cases – many that are still active.  Of the cases now closed, more than fifty have resulted in acquittal, favorable plea bargains, or the complete dismissal of HIV-related charges.

The lawsuit alleges that DeShong, 49, has spent the last five years posting defamatory emails and blogs under numerous fictitious names in an attempt to silence Baker and disrupt OMSJ’s business effort under the guise of exercising First Amendment freedom of speech rights. The suit claims that in 2009 DeShong directed his improper attacks at OMSJ’sHIV Innocence Group, which has successfully defended dozens of men and women who were accused of HIV-transmission crimes. Currently 32 states, the military, and two U.S. territories have laws that criminalize the intentional exposure of HIV to another person, even if the retrovirus is not actually transmitted.

On September 5, OMSJ filed its First Amended Complaint, along with Responses to the Defendant’s FRCP 12 (b) (6) and Anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss. A federal judge is now reviewing the motions and has set the trial for January 2015.

The amended complaint and responses can be found at:

• First Amended Complaint

• Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

• Response to Defendant’s Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss

• Clark Baker’s Affidavit

A fundamental assumption of the “Greenhouse Climate Change” theory is that the energy entering the earth from the sun is “balanced” by the energy emitted from the earth.

This illusion is assisted by the assumption that all energy exchanges are by radiation, and therefore are instantaneous. Without this assumption it would be impossible to claim that all “change” of climate is exclusively caused by increases of human-emitted “greenhouse gases”

The latest official presentation of this theory is by Trenberth K E, J T Fasullo and J. Kiehl (2009), Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 311-323. It is depicted in what is commonly known as the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram (or K-T energy budget: Fig 1 below)

Near the beginning this paper states:

“For an equilibrium climate the outgoing long wave radiation necessarily balances the incoming absorbed solar radiation.”

Then it goes on to admit that there are many reasons why this is not true. These include scattering and reflection of incoming radiation  by clouds and aerosols, absorption by the atmosphere, transfer of absorbed heat to kinetic energy and latent heat. They also admit that energy may be stored for some time or be converted to other forms of energy.

The above diagram, which assumes constant values for all the assumed energy transfers, shows a global energy imbalance of +0.9W/sqm, presumably a result of the mentioned additional disturbing factors. If their figures are realistic this means that the earth is warming without increases in “greenhouse gases.”

A revision of this diagram, about to be launched by the Fifth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and which I am not allowed to show you, complicates this still further. They change several of their chosen figures but they now admit that the figures chosen are more or less arbitrary choices from a range of published estimates which they now add to the diagram.

Some days ago I was reading the debate between Gary Novak and Pierre Latour regarding the absurd hypothesis by the former, suggesting we “eliminate” the kinetic energy equation and replace it with the momentum equation.

Of course, I have no problem in totally supporting what Pierre Latour (who is a very competent and expert Chemical Engineer) wrote. His statements and calculations were totally correct, whereas those by Gary Novak were totally wrong, and no absurd claim of “corrupted science” can change that.

Therefore, my arguments below are only further evidences of the bizarre and indefensible statements by Gary Novak, maybe other readers can add their own.

Actually, the “arguments”  by Novak regarding kinetic energy and momentum, are quite similar to those sophistic  paradoxes  from the philosopher, Zeno of Elea, in 5 B.C. when he said that the fast Achilles could not reach the turtle, because any times he moved on the road, he had to make ½ + ¼ + 1/8 of cm., and so he could not reach the turtle making the same road, because he had to run “infinite little spaces”.

The Zeno paradox was an error, of course, because the limit of ½ + ¼ + 1/8 …+ 1/n is mathematically converging to 1, and doesn’t tend to infinity, first of all. Moreover Zeno was forgetting the TIME, both Achilles and the turtle are traveling on a physical space/time = velocity, so you can always compare the velocities of both.

But Zeno was living 2,500 years ago, and NOT in 2013 as Gary Novak!

So, it is clear that Novak is confusing momentum (p = mv) with kinetic energy , which is Force x displacement (Fs) = ½ mv², when he wrote that kinetic energy should be mv (???) and not ½ mv², as any high school students know.

In doing so, Novak “forgets” that kinetic energy refers to acceleration, work and power, namely totally different concepts than momentum only.

I received a question about how the 168 W/m2 solar input from the IPCC energy diagram (last post) can be converted into a temperature.  Here is my reply plus some further elaboration:

_______________

Radiation Wattage can be converted directly into a temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

F = sigma*T4

where F is the radiant wattage, sigma is a physical constant (Stefan-Boltzmann constant) equal to 5.67×10-8, and T is temperature.

So, solve for T:

T = fourth_root(F/sigma).

The IPCC lists the wattage from the Sun as 168 W/m2 (this is actually a wattage flux, or energy flux density, a wattage flowing through a square meter, i.e. Joules per second per square meter).

Then you get T = fourth_root(168/5.67×10-8) = 233K = -40C, which is the temperature that the radiation would induce in matter on the surface when absorbed.  Sunshine induces a heck of a lot higher than -40C…up to 121C (250F) actually.  See the figure below for my own diagram which lists the REAL energy flux values and related temperatures from the Sun/Earth etc.

They’re so blatant about how wrong their diagram is, that they list the atmosphere providing almost twice the amount of power than the Sun does.  324 from backradiation over 168 from the Sun = 192{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.  The atmosphere, without being an actual source of energy because there’s no actual chemical, nuclear, or any release of energy going on in the atmosphere, miraculously provides twice the heat of the Sun.  So, I guess when we feel warm sunshine and cool air, we have it backwards?  It is the Sun that feels cool and the air that feels warm…on one side of your body…the side that’s facing the Sun…errr…

So, looking at the IPCC energy numbers, yes indeed there is a problem.  Energy is being invented from nowhere, numbers are just being made up, and then they say that it’s from the atmosphere and greenhouse gases.

Living organisms are dependent on a whole series of chemical reactions whose rate is dependent on temperature. To maintain life, the whole organism must be surrounded by an environment which keeps  the temperature of the organism within the limits necessary for its continuity. The environment must also make possible the provision of the necessary inputs  such as food and  shelter and the disposal of outputs.

The first five levels of the environment are essential for the maintenance of human settlement. The sixth is only required for recreation and exploration . Yet it is the only level that is promoted by “Environmentalists” They are hardly interested at all in the first five levels which are the only really important ones for human progress.

“Protection”  of this sixth level is heavily dependent on the effectiveness and efficiency of the first five: on the expenditure which is left after its essential maintenance .

Environmentalists”  display extreme concern for the non human organisms of the sixth level, but this interest is grossly uneven. Large easily visible organisms are regarded as important whereas small invisible organisms are neglected. This lack of balance prevents effective “protection” of any of them.

At the moment, it looks like an El Nino will make a comeback by the time winter starts. We are in the neutral zone at the moment, but moving in the direction of a weak El Nino for most of this upcoming winter.

If that turns out to be true as we expect, the winter of 2013-2014 in the Southeast U.S. will prove to be much worse than last winter in terms of snow and cold. The southeast received almost no snow last winter with one or two below-normal temperature days at best. This winter I’m sure will prove to be much different.

In addition to the weak El Nino, we expect to see a much more negative NAO. This will provide many opportunities for snow as low pressure will tend to form in the Gulf of Mexico along several stalled Arctic fronts that move down from Canada over the course of the Southeast Winter. That will produce a much more winter weather-type pattern than we haven’t seen in many years. A negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) will open the door for Arctic Cold air to areas east of the Mississippi. As this cold heavy Arctic air moves down into the southeast and the weak El Nino provides Gulf storms that will move up the east coast, we will have a near perfect set-up this winter for more snow in the southeast than seen in many years. Perhaps you would have to go back in time to the 60′s and 70′s to see this type pattern.

Dr. Gary Novak and Dr. Pierre Latour present opposing views on fusion energy and supposed errors and misunderstandings in the physics. Herein we provide readers with the email exchange for edification and further open discussion.

Dr. Novak’s opening remarks:

Physicists totally expected to succeed with a nuclear fusion project using lasers, but the results did not produce a significant amount of energy, and the project is being cut back due to failure, as indicated in this National Geographic article: ‘Fusion Energy Quest Faces Boundaries of Budget‘ (Science, July 26, 2013).

As the article indicates, physicists based their energy assumptions on Einstein’s equation, E=mc². A scientific origin for the equation does not exist. It came off the top of Einstein’s head. Einstein paralleled the equation for kinetic energy, KE=½mv². I show simple and unquestionable mathematical proof that the equation for kinetic energy is in error. Velocity should not be squared. Real kinetic energy is simply momentum, mv. Momentum transforms into other forms of energy with conservation, while ½mv² does not. Shown here: http://nov79.com/en/ener.html

In other words, Einstein paralleled an erroneous equation. To parallel the correct equation, he should have said, E=mc. There is a huge difference in the end result when the velocity of light is squared compared to non-squared.What this means is physicists expect a lot more energy from fusion (or disintegration of matter) than is really possible. Why didn’t this false expectation show up with nuclear fission reactions?

How The “Hottest” Temperature Game Is Played To Offset Prediction Failures

Global temperature is not doing what the “official” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted. Proponents of the claim humans are the cause of warming and the cooperative media react by trying to deflect, divert and perpetuate fear. They exploit people’s lack of knowledge and understanding. A January 2013 ABC News headline said, “2012 Was 9th Warmest Year on Record, Says NASA” is a classic example of how the public are deliberately misled. It is deliberate because it distorts, is out of context, and exploits manipulation of statistics or as Disraeli summarized, “Lies, damn lies and statistics.”

The deception begins with the headline but is expanded in the article. The challenge is to know what is actually being said. Initially, you need a translator, but can develop sufficient propaganda detectors once the methods are identified. There are guidelines that work in most circumstances:

Don’t believe anything you read; Question everything; Be especially suspicious of numbers; Know the source and political bias; If you’re affected by the story get at least three other sources; Remember all government information and data is biased; Be especially wary of stories that cite authorities.

The ‘Hockey Schtick’ (HS) reports (September 10, 2013) on more problems for official climate models. Newly-published research shows that climate models do not realistically simulate the role of wind (convection) on earth’s climate.

The HS-highlighted paper is published the very same day as a damning new analysis exposing similar flaws in the upcoming UN climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

HS explains:

“A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models do not realistically simulate convection, “a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy,” because of a large gap in the scale or resolution required to simulate convection [1-2 km] compared to global atmospheric motions [on the order of 10,000 km].” 

Meanwhile, Dr. Vincent Gray (Expert Reviewer of every IPCC report since 1990) publishes his own damning study in which wind, among other forces, is not factored into the official models, thereby causing climatologists to overestimate the effects of so-called “greenhouse gases.”

Taken together, both the GRL paper and the study by Dr. Gray form persuasive evidence that undue emphasise has long been placed on the roles of radiation and carbon dioxide (CO2) in climate change.

As the impacts of wind and the water cycle (via latent heat) are increasingly recognized this may persuade ever more scientists to question the greenhouse gas “theory” itself.

A few months ago Professor Robert G. Brown of Duke University wrote at WUWT and elsewhere that members of Principia Scientific International (PSI) don’t know Mathematics (sic). Brown then defied PSI to prove that the inner core of a hollow metal sphere is not heated by “backradiation” ( a junk science concept alien to thermodynamics experts).

Then, as if to “prove” his claim that “backradiation” is “real” Brown  wrote that if we wrapped a hot light bulb up with an aluminum foil, then in a very short time the bulb would be  overheated. To Brown the ensuing overheating of the light bulb was by “backradiation” generated from the aluminum foil (applied scientists may be heard sniggering at the very idea!).

However, Brown was unable to show any actual relevant calculations (only a long and boring array of meaningless algebraic gymnastics) to support what he said. Nonetheless, I took very seriously his challenge and I tried to calculate, in the most precise way, what really happens whenever you wrap a light bulb up with an aluminum foil.

What I present herein are typical, sound and established equations that any serious applied physicists, engineers, technicians, etc., will often use in the course of their work in what is euphemistically known as the “real world”. This is perhaps why academics like Brown, residing in their (“unreal world”) ivory towers, so often fail? For instance, it is a routine task for applied scientists and engineers to, say, calculate how much an electric wire may heat surrounding plastic insulation cable, or define the temperature reached by the casing of car engines in close contact with pistons, etc.

Clearly, it comes as a surprise for Mr. Brown (but not for PSI!) that in the fields of applied science it is impossible to find ANY manuals, technical textbooks, etc., using climate science’s mysterious “backradiation” to carry out  such practical (“real world”) calculations.

“Backradiation” is regarded as a sort of “Arabian Phoenix” in the scientific and technical community. Of course, the academics and global warming believers are saying it exists, but nobody has ever actually found it! Maybe Professor Brown believes otherwise, but I have never met an engineer devising an engine, an industrial plant, or an electric device using “backradiation” to calculate how much heat is passing through the materials!

Global temperatures have flatlined for the last 16 years. Increased public dissatisfaction with what is seen as junk climate science has put policymakers very much on the spot.

For the last six months Judy Ryan (a retired Epidemiologist) and Marjorie Curtis (a retired Geologist) have been engaged in a public letter writing campaign against prominent scientific climate alarmists, in Australia. The strategy is working.

Now, with the Federal election a week away Judy and Marjory have lodged a formal complaint to the Ombudsman against the Department of Climate Change and the Climate Commission. Over one hundred media outlets, opposition politicians and University student newspapers are openly copied in, so that it is on the public record.

Judy and Marjorie say they will keep applying pressure for a full investigatation of their formal complaint with the Ombudsman, and they have another formal complaint in the pipeline.  Below we are delighted to publish a full copy of their latest correspondence in the matter.

On January 1st 1989 the nations of the world took action, via the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to eliminate the production of certain atmospheric pollutants; the man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC’s), because they caused ozone depletion in the stratosphere. This depletion allows excessive ultraviolet-B (UV-B) from the Sun to reach the Earth’s surface where it increases the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, and suppresses the immune system for humans and also damages other life forms.

The action of ozone is to absorb the radiance from the Sun across a number of different frequency bands including the damaging UV-B band. An extensive database of the infrared absorption spectra for gases is maintained on the HITRAN Web site by the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA, USA, in conjunction with the V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics, Tomsk, Russia. It includes the absorption spectra for water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and the halocarbons which the UN’s Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated are, in order of importance, the main ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere.

While we have been told that ‘greenhouse gases’ are a cause of dangerous surface global warming, climate scientists have failed to tell us that they also absorbs radiation from the Sun in the upper atmosphere thereby protecting the Earth in a similar fashion to the protection given by ozone.For the case of absorption by CO2, the most prominent spectral line is at a wavelength of 4.3 microns.

Applying Planck’s Law this gives us a spectral radiance of no more than 0.73 Watts per (steradian metre squared) per micron. This is for an Earth emitting at a temperature of 288 degrees Kelvin, dependent on the emissivity at the time. For the incoming Sun’s spectral radiance at the Earth’s orbit, the figure is 2.24 W/(sr m^2)/micron for a Sun temperature of 5780 degrees Kelvin.

These numbers mean that at least THREE TIMES as much heat is radiated back into space by CO2 in the upper atmosphere as is ‘back-radiated’ to the Earth’s surface at this wavelength.

Clearly, absorption and re-radiation of the sunshine in the upper atmosphere at this wavelength cools the Earth and is going to cause additional cooling as the concentration of CO2 increases.

Temperatures on the moon are very hot in the daytime, about 100 degrees C. At night, the lunar surface gets very cold, as cold as minus 173 degrees C. This wide variation is because Earth’s moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day.

A single “day” on the moon lasts about 28 Earth days, meaning the lunar daytime is nearly two Earth weeks long.

Today (August 27th 2013), the hottest place on Earth is Palm Springs, where some dear friends of mine are living – I trust. The temperature has reached 134° Fahrenheit, which corresponds to 56.67°Centigrade. This is reckoned to be an all time record.

Just imagine then living on the Moon, where the daytime temperature can reach 123C and the nighttime will drop to MINUS 153C. 123C is more than twice as hot as our hottest day recorded.

On the question of temperature I would like to quote an email that I received from atmospheric physicist, James A. Peden, 4.12.2011: –

“Temperature” is based on a measure of the energy of molecular motion… and indeed,

the temperature at the edge of our atmosphere is quite “hot” … because the molecules,

albeit few in number, have a high kinetic energy … thus technically have a high “temperature”.

However, there are very few of them. Therefore the “heat content” is very small….

resulting in very few calories per unit volume. At sea level, there is a pretty good

correlation between temperature and heat content: a kettle of boiling water has both a

high temperature and high heat content.

But at the edge of space, with very few molecules per unit volume, you have the

seemingly paradoxical condition of both high temperature and low heat content.

This week Christine Metcalfe, 69, a Scottish community councillor, scored a stunning landmark legal victory bringing to a halt the UK government’s unlawful and unpopular wind energy initiative. In effect, all British wind farm development is mothballed until grassroots public consent is granted – if ever.

Below Christine provides her personal insights on this extraordinary long running battle in which Britain and the EU were ruled to have breached citizens’ rights, protected under the UN’s Aarhus Convention.

A personal view on the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s draft decision on Complaint Ref. ACCC/C/2012/68

By Christine Metcalfe

Initially, like millions of others, I believed the claims made relating to wind power technology. I wanted to. It seemed to wipe away the perceived problem of climate change by using a free source of energy!

I also cherished the belief that in an open democratic and Europeanised society policies and public participation in decision making were open, rational and defensible. So I have some sympathy with those who have yet to appreciate that both the UK and the EU created immense and powerful mechanisms for counteracting climate change without the open scrutiny, intellectual accountability and checks and balances which lie at the heart of the Aarhus Convention, and which at our peril we take for granted.

So the independent Committee’s Ruling will be extremely valuable in highlighting issues that must be rectified in the public interest. But despite the subject matter it is not just about renewable energy policy or fixes for climate change: its principally about practice, participation and transparency. It shows that it is not merely possible, but imperative that our authorities are held to account not only by experts, but by ordinary citizens at the ‘grass roots’ of society.

The complaint – stemming from local injustices in a far-flung corner of Argyll, but driven by seemingly unassailable EU-wide policies with an ostensible global rationale – has enabled exposure of an increasing disconnect between authorities. They have become politicised and committed to the current orthodoxy, despite increasing scientific and technical evidence to the contrary. It is the very lack of open-ness, scrutiny and accountability that has allowed this to go so far that it is in danger of becoming immutable and those who challenge it branded as heretics rather than democrats.

The informed public must now be more willing and able to deploy the Committee’s Ruling whenever the need arises. This is especially true now that the tentacles of political will are using government organisations to further their aims.

“The rain in Spain …. stays mainly in the plain” sings Eliza Doolittle in the theme song of My Fair Lady. But not just in Spain, also in Australia.

A new study to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says the massive rainfalls in Australia in 2011 and 2012 caused a global sea level decrease of 7 mm (about 1/3 inch).

Ocean Water Levels

The water level in the world’s oceans had been rising steadily over quite some time. Ever since the last ice age’s great ice masses in the northern hemisphere started to melt in earnest, some 15,000 years ago, all that melt-water flowed into the oceans and resulted in a rapid rise of 100+ m. Beginning some 7,000 years ago, most of the ice had melted and the ocean level rise slowed to a trickle. Over the last 200 years it rose less than 30 cm. Claims of a renewed acceleration of sea level rise have largely been shown to be false.

Apart from lack of (additional) melt water, water was then being retained on the continents in form of lakes, rivers and continental aquifers, as well as in the atmosphere. A new (near) equilibrium had been reached, as evident from the graph following (source: Wikipedia).

 While the postglacial sea level rise not only has significantly slowed compared to the 10,000-year period immediately preceding it, some areas are actually experiencing the opposite, namely a decline of sea levels due to isostatic rebound.

“If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,” she told the committee.

This is Professor Judith Curry speaking to a committee in the House of Representatives in the USA.

Curry certainly has the credentials. She is a professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She also runs a side business as a private weather forecaster. But she doesn’t deny the basic principles of climate change.

“If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,” she told the committee.

Sorry, Professor Judith, it is not at all clear, not by any means.

If all what other things remain equal?

In the topography of the Earth and Oceans nothing could be more unequal and uneven. And as for the atmosphere it is a constant flux of varying barometric pressures, of clouds and clear skies, of winds, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, of dry savannahs and impenetrable swamps. Nowhere on the earth or in the atmosphere is there anything that is remotely equal. Inequality rules both the day and the night.