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. 

Australian acoustics expert, W Les Huson, performs a detailed case study on a wind farm to prove that noise pollution study is complex and problematic. Wind turbines operators declined to assist research. Full paper reproduced below.

ABSTRACT

Results of two channel simultaneous audio recordings outdoors in the free field and inside a bedroom are presented from the Leonards Hill wind farm that has two Repower 2MW MM82 wind turbines. 

The analysis demonstrates the dynamic effects of amplitude modulation on attenuation of sound between the two measurement locations and shows how outdoor to indoor attenuation is compromised at particular room resonant modes.

Different measurement approaches are discussed with the conclusion that a 10Hz sampling rate of sound level is insufficient to accurately determine peak to trough amplitude modulations.

Infrasound measurements are also presented to show that amplitude modulation is also observable below 20Hz and that low frequency infrasound may also be considered to be amplitude modulation.

The Royal Society [of Britain], hereinafter “RS”, a venerable institution with more than 300 years on its back, has been served with a scientific challenge from independent scientists. The dispute is about the society’s continued refusal to even acknowledge, much less discuss, evidence to the contrary of their stance on carbon dioxide as THE “climate change” villain and the amounts and rates involved in the carbon cycle in various compartments of the Earth’s ecosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), by some people referred to as “carbon pollution,” has been vilified by politicians and scientists alike as a “greenhouse gas” that, supposedly, heats the earth to a “tipping point” of calamitous proportions for the entire world. That view has been propagated by people like Al Gore and Michael Mann, and by organisations like the RS and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, hereinafter “PIK.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, hereinafter “IPCC” has been a major proponent of Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph in the past; it no longer is, as their latest report omits it. No wonder, the graph has become a “sticky point” for the believers in the CO2-theory when its scientific foundations were found to be, shall we say, shaky as Mann’s lawsuits against his critics unravels.

To this day though, RS, PIK and IPCC officials as well as renowned politicians use terms like “carbon pollution,” ”global warming,“ “climate change” and “ocean acidification” as reason to propose and enact all kinds international agreements, new laws, taxing mechanisms, “pollution control mechanisms,” “environmental principles of conduct” and so on. All such new rules depend on the veracity of the scientific claims behind them. That’s where the rubber hits the road.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) has great pleasure in joining in the challenge by way of publishing Dr Kaiser’s analysis in our unique PROM system for reader feedback (PROM: peer review in open media). From the response (or lack thereof) to Dr. Kaiser’s challenge to the RS, PIK and the scientific community at large, as provided in his paper,  “The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math” (https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-KAISER-Carbon_Cycle_and_RS_Math.pdf), take your clue.

The New York Times recently had a lengthy article on The Mammoth Cometh by Nathaniel Rich. It describes current efforts to recreate extinct species, from the Woolly Mammoth (gone for about 5,000 years) to New Zealand’s Great Auk and North America’s Passenger Pigeon. The latter found its demise exactly 100 years ago this year. Those are just some of the species the Revive & Restore “de-extinction” project has under consideration. The California Grizzly Bear, the Carolina Parakeet, the Tasmanian Tiger and Steller’s Sea Cow are also mentioned as potential candidates for revival. Presumably, all the “de-extincted” species are meant to again freely roam the Earth and in large numbers.

Revive & Restore

The Revive & Restore project is spearheaded by the husband and wife team of Stewart Brand and Ryan Phelan, with assistance from Ben Novak, Perry Hall and others. Their brief bios can be found at the project’s website.

It may well be possible to “revive” some of these extinct species with modern scientific methods though some scientists don’t think so. Passenger pigeons might find sufficient habitat and food in the harvested areas of the grain fields on the continent, but seeing again swarms of 50 million pigeons darkening the sky is not likely, even if they can be de-extincted. 

BUSINESS SPECTATOR:

It might seem strange to say it, but I am a global warming skeptic because of Carl Sagan.This might seem strange because Sagan was an early promoter of the theory that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are going to fry the globe. 

It’s untrue that temperatures are rising unusually and alarmingly. Al Gore’s invented “Tipping Points” have never been specified (& 4); It’s untrue that a 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} consensus of thousands of scientists claims human CO2 is causing warming. Reality is 0.3-1.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}. Regardless, consensus does not determine science. Often, claims of scientific consensus and appeals to authority are used by people lacking evidence.

Otherwise they’d present scientific evidence (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/). PM Kevin Rudd and the UN IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri stated 4,000 scientists claim human CO2 will cause warming. UN figures reveal that among reviewers of the 2007 report’s sole chapter claiming warming attributed to human CO2 only 5 reviewers endorse the claim. Many thousands of scientists publicly state they disagree with the UN;

It’s untrue that at some unspecified future date there will be catastrophe unless humans cut CO2 output. There are no unusual weather events as claimed: sea levels, ocean acidification (oceans are not acidic they’re alkaline), droughts, floods, storms, extinctions, diseases, fires, snowfall, rainfall, … Many glaciers are growing. Not one city or ocean island has flooded despite Al Gore predicting cities would be shut down by 2000. SEAFRAME study proves no rise of sea at any south Pacific island in the last 20 years.

Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013 yet Arctic sea ice is growing. Regardless, much of the Arctic ice cap is floating and if that melted sea level would not rise. While forecasting sea level rises Tim Flannery and politicians Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Greg Combet and Al Gore bought property adjacent tidal water (Appendices 4a & 12)
Beneficiaries of climate alarm pushing taxing and trading paper CO2 credits and derivatives (Appendix 14):

Climate scientist left with nowhere to hide in unwinnable multi-million dollar libel claim. Michael Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, tries to put on a brave face as his client’s SLAPP suit against Tim Ball hits a fatal technicality that bodes ill for Penn. State University’s climate data fraudster.  Defeat and disgrace for Mann is inevitable due to his continued refusal to show in open court what Mann still laughingly terms his “proprietary data.”

Last week McConchie, who “literally wrote the book” on Canadian libel law, issued a standard facile press release dismissing as “preposterous…nonsense” a Principia Scientific International (PSI) article in which John O’Sullivan, an outspoken party to the proceedings, astonishingly declared Mann’s case against Ball effectively dead.  O’Sullivan immediately replied mocking McConchie. As we see detailed below, McConchie can’t flim-flam his way out of this one.

To readers unfamiliar with Canadian rules of civil procedure, Under Canadian law (Sedona Canada Principles), it is unlawful for an attorney to be complicit in his client’s intentional withholding of key evidence from the court.  Penalties and sanctions include fines, professional sanctions and disbarment for wilful offenders, not to mention potential summary judgment in favor of the opposing litigants (in this case, Dr Tim Ball).

The Sedona Canada Principles (see www.thesedonaconference.org) provide guidance with respect to the evidence preservation/disclosure obligation [1]. Canada demands that all litigants (and their attorneys) preserve documents or records from a wide-variety of data types, storage locations and the applicable applications to retrieve such information (if it relates to out-of-date or older archived records). For Michael Mann, this meant he had to prevail upon the Information Technology personnel at Penn. State University and his former employers at the University of Virginia to retrieve and surrender to him (and the British Columbia Supreme Court) all paperwork plus any “data and information stored in electronic form”

The Sedona Canada Principles are of great advantage to Dr Ball being that Mann cannot persist indefinitely in unlawfully keeping under wraps his “secret science.”  Already three years have passed since Mann first filed his claim against Ball after Ball published an article in Canada Free Press whereby he joked that Mann “belongs in the state penn, not Penn State.“

But all joking aside, the intentional concealing of key evidence is always fatal to any offending litigant’s claims, and any such act of concealment is known in the legal profession as spoliation.  Wilful spoliators (evidence destroyers/concealers) now face the most stringent penalties under Canadian law.

THE SCARE STORY is that global warming from human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is going to melt the glaciers of the world causing widespread ecological disasters. The unverifiable junk science claim is that they will continue to melt at an increasing rate and eventually vanish. For example in the paper “Climate Change in Relation to the Himalayas” by S.P.Singh [1],  the author typifies an alarmist position and says… 

“…rivers and adjoining grassland and forest ecosystems would be severely affected by the phase of rapid snow melt and subsequent phase of the absence of the snow melt water forever with the loss of glaciers.”

THE TRUTH is that glaciers will never melt back above the SNOWLINE due to that being the height at which atmospheric temperature becomes zero and thereby where water vapour freezes. According to a well-respected 1980’s paper (before the current fad for global warming alarmism) a well-respected peer-reviewed paper ‘Holocene Glacier Fluctuations’ by Gerald Osborn and P Thompson Davis portrays a completely different secenario (image right). Osborn and Thompson Davis found that glaciers reached their maximum extent about 400 years ago. They say that since then there has been ” General retreat of most glaciers continuing to the present day.”

This line varies but as a rule of thumb a glacier forms above the snowline and then advances down into above zero temperatures, the region where it can actually melt. How much could supposed human-caused CO2 global warming push this line up? The answer is it cannot to any measurable amount. Therefore there will be no “loss of glaciers” as alleged by “climate scientists.”

THE ASSUMPTION is that glacial retreat is unusual, unprecedented and occurring at a rate faster than has ever been seen before because of human factors. Research into the history of glaciers reveals a different picture. Glaciers have been advancing and retreating constantly for thousands of years. The most recent peak in length of glaciers being with the peak of the little ice age. A short three-page paper here to verify this:  http://www.episodes.co.in/www/backissues/101/ARTICLES–26.pdf

 Naturally after reaching a MAXIMUM size with the peak of the Little Ice Age the glaciers started retreating. The glacial retreat of some areas started well before human industrialization even began and carries on to the present day. NO human fingerprint is thus proven.

Three-year Update and Latest Cooling Estimate

Thirty years ago this spring, actor Rock Hudson tested “positive” on the new “HIV test.”  A year and a half later, he was dead of so-called “AIDS” after sensational media reports set off a sexual panic.  We look at the more likely causes of death – and why those causes matter. It was the world’s most famous case of “AIDS.”  In June 1984, actor Rock Hudson, the good-looking, crew-cut symbol of perfect American manhood, received his diagnosis of the new syndrome, based on a “positive” result on a test that had been on the market for less than two months.

The hype around Hudson’s illness and death turned AIDS into a general “epidemic” from an affliction among a subset of gay men.  But we find other, more likely, causes for Hudson’s death.  The idea that AIDS could happen to anyone, accordingly, rests on a lie.

In the official biography he commissioned while wasting away, this famous yet very private man wrote, “I want the truth to be told, because it sure as hell hasn’t been told before.”  The media indeed didn’t tell the truth, in the rush to enroll us all in a sexual hysteria.

In another troubling precedent, a claimed Hudson lover filed the first lawsuit for “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”  Since then, we’ve seen widespread legal system abuse against alleged “HIV positives” based on a questionable medical diagnosis.  And we note the only token objections from AIDS organizations, which stand to gain from the hysteria as more otherwise healthy people seek “HIV tests.”  (This propaganda tactic later became known as the “Magic Effect.”)

The Irish Department of Health’s deputy chief medical officer has warned that people who live near wind turbines risk having their health and psychological well being compromised.

The Irish Examiner reports that, following a review of research on the effects of wind turbine noise on human health, the deputy CMO said, “There is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines.”

‘Wind turbine syndrome’ is a condition suffered by people living within earshot of the noise made by wind turbine blades as they spin round. The blades are known to make infrasounds, vibrations that we cannot consciously “hear”, yet still have an effect on the inner ear.

Symptoms include fatigue, dizziness, headache, difficulty concentrating, and insomnia.

“There are specific risk factors for this syndrome and people with these risk factors experience symptoms. These people must be treated appropriately and sensitively as these symptoms can be very debilitating,” the deputy CMO added. 

“The concentrated sunshine of tens of thousands of reflecting mirrors heats liquid on towers to drive steam turbines and create electricity, but also singes the wings of birds flying through the power plant’s footprint.”   USA Today – The Desert Sun

Courtesy of: the Desert Sun, Palm Springs, California

From the article of K. Kaufmann, The Desert Sun, Nov. 10, 2013

“A small bird, barely the size of a human hand, had its wings reduced to a web of charred spines. No longer able to keep aloft, the bird was found on the ground after it had flown through the intense heat of a solar thermal project soon to go online in the California desert.”

A manuscript that lay unnoticed by scientists for decades has revealed that Albert Einstein once dabbled with an alternative to the Big Bang theory, proposing instead that the Universe expanded steadily and eternally. The recently uncovered work, written in 1931, is reminiscent of a theory championed by British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle nearly 20 years later. Einstein soon abandoned the idea, but the manuscript reveals his continued hesitance to accept that the Universe was created during a single explosive event.

Last week in a Congressional hearing, John Holdren, the president’s science advisor, characterized me as being outside the “scientific mainstream” with respect to my views on extreme events and climate change. Specifically, Holdren was responding directly to views that I provided in Senate testimony that I gave last July (and here in PDF).

To accuse an academic of holding views that lie outside the scientific mainstream is the sort of delegitimizing talk that is of course common on blogs in the climate wars. But it is rare for political appointee in any capacity — the president’s science advisor no less — to accuse an individual academic of holding views are are not simply wrong, but in fact scientifically illegitimate. Very strong stuff.
Given the seriousness of Holdren’s charges and the possibility of negative professional repercussions, via email I asked him to substantiate or correct his characterization, to which he replied quite quickly that he would do so in the form of a promised follow-up to the Senate subcommittee.

Here is what I sent him:

Dear John-

I hope this note finds you well. I am writing in response to your characterization of me before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight yesterday, in which you said that my views lie “outside the scientific mainstream.”

This is a very serious charge to make in Congressional testimony about a colleague’s work, even more so when it comes from the science advisor to the president.

The context of your comments about me was an exchange that you had with Senator Sessions over my recent testimony to the full EPW Committee on the subject of extreme events. You no doubt have seen my testimony (having characterized it yesterday) and which is available here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.20.pdf

Your characterization of my views as lying “outside the scientific mainstream” is odd because the views that I expressed in my testimony are entirely consonant with those of the IPCC (2012, 2013) and those of the US government’s USGCRP.  Indeed, much of my testimony involved reviewing the recent findings of IPCC SREX and AR5 WG1. My scientific views are also supported by dozens of peer reviewed papers which I have authored and which have been cited thousands of times, including by all three working groups of the IPCC. My views are thus nothing if not at the center of the “scientific mainstream.”

Below we run an introductory extract from the Connolly Family’s website to both encourage wider reader participation in ongoing open peer review of such analyses, as well as to demonstrate the unstoppable rise of principled scientists against government-sponsored academic fraud.

Contents

What we have found

1. We are not warming the planet

For several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.

It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.