“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.

The Big Bang theory had found observational support in the 1920s, when US astronomer Edwin Hubble and others discovered that distant galaxies are moving away and that space itself is expanding. This seemed to imply that, in the past, the contents of the observable Universe had been a very dense and hot ‘primordial broth’.

But, from the late 1940s, Hoyle argued that space could be expanding eternally and keeping a roughly constant density. It could do this by continually adding new matter, with elementary particles spontaneously popping up from space, Hoyle said. Particles would then coalesce to form galaxies and stars, and these would appear at just the right rate to take up the extra room created by the expansion of space. Hoyle’s Universe was always infinite, so its size did not change as it expanded. It was in a ‘steady state’.

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.”

Further expert independent research affirms the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ of man-made global warming is bogus. Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Michael Connolly and Dr. Imelda Connolly have launched a new website detailing their five-year intensive study. We believe their research is a compelling addition to the body of work exposing the greatest scientific fraud of all time.

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.

 

Start Here

Contents

What we have found

The methods we used

Our motivation for this work

Where to learn more about our research

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}.

Proper climate scientists with PhDs in the subject and everything say they have “debunked” a climate change “myth” which is commonly repeated on the internet. The myth in question is the idea that global warming is causing an increase in the number of tropical cyclones/hurricanes. Certainly there’s plenty of support among bloggers for that idea:

“Global warming and the future of storms … hurricanes will become more frequent” – The Guardian, “Climate Consensus”

“The North Atlantic Ocean Basin has been in a more active period of tropical cyclones since 1995” – Climate Central

“Hurricane Sandy is an example of the extreme weather symptomatic of continued climate change, as storms continue to become more frequent” – Greenpeace

“The last decade has seen an average of 17 hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic – earlier in the century, half that number were recorded” – BBC

But it’s not true, according to Professor Stefan Grab and postdoc researcher Jennifer Fitchett of Witwatersrand university in South Africa. The two scientists write:

By analysing three storm track records spanning periods of 66–161 years, we establish that much of the perceived change in storm numbers can be attributed to improvements in storm detection methods over the past century.

The new study is published in the International Journal of Climatology. The “debunk” and “myth” quotes are from a Witwatersrand uni announcement highlighting that research and another paper by Fitchett, which suggests that winter frosts in South Africa are set to become more damaging. ®

Read more from The Register here.

 

Empty claim by lawyer of climate data fraudster, Michael Mann paints a picture of desperation as SLAPP suit against Dr Tim Ball flunks. Junk scientist left with nowhere to hide secret faked ‘hockey stick’ graph computer code after hard-hitting recent article. On his Facebook page Mann yesterday posted his lawyer, Roger McConchie’s, tame rebuttal to my recent article:

          “The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief.”

Here’s why that’s pure attorney flim-flam. Mann will not dare go to trial because to do so would require he surrender as evidence his hidden metadata (more on that below). To let a jury see that statistical chicanery would prove Dr Ball correctly adduced that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State!” As such, egotistical Mann’s trumped up case is unwinnable.

As Penn. State’s junk climate scientist Michael Mann sees his SLAPP lawsuit against climatologist Dr Tim Ball expensively unravel in the Vancouver court, we provide readers with an authoritative non-technical summary of what a SLAPP suit actually is. Virginia P. Sherlock, Esq. of Littman, Sherlock & Heims explains below:

What is a SLAPP suit?
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The term was coined by two University of Denver law professors, George Pring and Penelope Canan, who wrote SLAPPS: Getting Sued for Speaking Out, published in 1996.

SLAPP suits typically involve the environment – for example, local residents who petition government to prevent a real estate development might be sued in a SLAPP suit for interference with the developer’s business interests.

However, SLAPP suits aren’t limited to environmental or development activities. SLAPP suits have been filed in attempts to silence a critic of breast implant technologies, a critic of a major pharmaceuticals company, internet service providers who host public interest blogs.

There is a whole new body of law developing in the CyberSLAPP context, in which developers seek to silence anonymous posters to internet blogs or chat rooms.

Dr Pierre R Latour, PSI Vice-Chairman and Professional Chemical Process Control Systems Engineer, registered in California and Texas, is an invited speaker at Thunderbolts Project Electric Universe 2014 Conference: ‘All About Evidence,’ in Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 20 – 24, 2014. He will address the group on’ Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO₂?’ Dr Latour will explain why Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system and will present a review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO_2. Previously, in 1997 Latour proved the concept would never work in practice because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. In short, CO₂ does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO₂. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. Global warming has also stabilized since 1998.

Dr Latour will show his audience that Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Engineering, Economics, History and Ethics are deployed to identify the barriers to designing the thermostat to control Earth’s atmospheric temperature by adjusting its CO₂ input.

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.

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

Several decades ago, a then-Prime Minister of Canada used the F-expletive to describe his displeasure with a political opponent. The official transcript used the term “Fuddle-Duddle” instead. It seems that much of the continent is currently stuck in deep freeze with no end in sight. So, is it permissible to use that term for the weather?

Polar Vortex and Beer Gardens

The weather people blame it on the Polar Vortex. It keeps all that Arctic air nicely on top of the North American land mass. In contrast to us, the Germans are missing out on winter this year. In Munich, Bavaria, the people are enjoying cool steins in the city’s beer gardens. What a hardship!

Climate Depot

The Climate Depot website reported on Feb. 25, 2014 on the testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Inter alia Moore stated “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

Mother Nature did her best to drive home his point by providing a frigid “climate” for the day. What a nice gesture! But it must also be said that what is happening outside on any given day is the “weather” whereas climate is measured in decades and centuries.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa — known for his tough questions for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — wants to know why a former researcher at Iowa State University wasn’t prosecuted more vigorously after he was found to have deliberately spiked rabbit blood samples in a federally-funded HIV vaccine study.

As Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register reports:

In a pointed letter Monday, the Iowa Republican asked why the culprit, Dong-Pyou Han, only received a three-year ban from participating in federally financed research.

“This seems like a very light penalty for a doctor who purposely tampered with a research trial and directly caused millions of taxpayer dollars to be wasted on fraudulent studies,” Grassley wrote to a senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

 

Australia’s obdurate pro-green governmental bureaucracy has too long portrayed CO2 as a pollutant in taxpayer-funded literature, contrary to scientific fact. Campaigner and retired epidemiologist, Dr Judy Ryan, has championed objective reality over green spin to demand that the blatant lie that carbon dioxide is a black and polluting gas be expunged. Below, for the edification of concerned readers, we have pleasure in publishing Judy’s entire correspondence in this matter.

BACKGROUND TO THE FORMAL COMPLAINT (No 2013- 502790) TO THE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE INCORRECT PORTRAYAL OF CO2 AS A BLACK POLLUTING GAS BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

The Original  Formal Complaint was lodged against the then Department  for Climate Change (DCC) on 29th August 2013. It had many political and media  entities openly copied in, Students newspapers from all the major universities were also copied in. DCC  had 28 days to respond before  we could exercise our right to take it to the Ombudsman. The elections intervened and  DCC became  the Department of the Environment (DOE). Nobody from DOE contacted us so we took the formal complaint to the Ombudsman  on the 10th October 2013.  Nothing happened for a while, but I was assured over the phone that it was waiting to be attended to.  Time passed, and passed, and passed, until on the  afternoon of the 26th November 2013 I left a message on the Ombudsman’s answering machine, stating that If the matter was not dealt with within the next 48 hours we would lodge it again by public email. The following morning 27th November an officer from the Ombudsman’s office contacted me, deeply apologetic because the original formal complaint to DCC had somehow got lost in the change over of Government.  It’s a bit like “Yes Minister”  We re-resubmitted  the complaint to DOE.

 It was not dealt with satisfactorily  by the DOE officer and we took the complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 January 2014. The Ombudsman rejected it  on 22nd January , but we intend to exercise our right to resubmit the complaint.