New report says the Antarctic ice-shelf is not melting after all. Now why does that not surprise me?
We’ve heard the clarion call of the global warming alarmists, “the science is settled”. Or perhaps the aggressive shrill of the atheist’s faith in evolution, “all those scientists can’t be wrong”. Yeah, yeah, they rattle off the consensus science mantra ie, that peer review proves it must be so. But is that really the case or could it be that if you don’t fall into line with the magority then you are considered odd, wrong and not worthy of the scantiest consideration? Usually, as Dr Crichton says below, “Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.”
I happen to believe that consensus science ie, peer review sometimes actually impedes science. Why?Simply put, if you don’t agree then you are an outcast. It therefore falls into the realm of philosophy; not evidence and is open to subjective fantasy. The now slowly dying global warming scam is a case in point.
Dr Michael Crichton (author of film, Jurassic Park and TV medical drama series, ER) in his 2003 speech Aliens cause Global Warming said the following:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” [ Link to article]
The Australians are being conned by the climate change alarmist into believing that they need to pay for their CO2 emissions to the tune of 75 billion dollars over the next 5 years. I was sent this video recently to illustrate just how much or should I say how little CO2 man contributes to the overall CO2 levels in the world.
Don’t be conned by the deliberate liars of climate change. Use common sense and think of the Rice Grain illustration next time someone spouts off the alarmist dribble.
As you may well be aware from reading my comments in certain posts, I am a man-made global warming (AGW) skeptic and I am passionate about it. I cannot stand the lies and hypocricy that emanate from those that propose such idiotic lunacy.
Well, it appears from the midst of the IPCC fanatics there is a German scientist who has finally come to the same conclusion. He writes:
“I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”
Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
Read Anthony Watts blog Watts Up With That? and find out just why this man has come to his senses.
Monckton at his very best interviews a global warming alarmist as she campaigns against AGW. The interesting thing to note is how trusting this woman is in the Green Peace propaganda on the subject and that she would prefer this campaigning organisation’s version rather than spend 5-10 minutes checking the actual data provided free by the world’s universities.
This poor soul epitomizes the stupidity of warmists and their blind allegiance nay religious fervor to a hypothesis totally lacking in scientific credibility.
Her site contains a speech given recently by Dr Murry Salby. “It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.”
Well done Professor Salby.
In my research regarding the origin of life it was inevitable that I should tackle organic evolution. The problem with the organic evolution hypothesis is the beginning of all things. The proponents claim there was once nothing then came something but the crux of the problem then becomes how you get something from nothing. Mathematically it is not possible despite the intellectual gymnastics of quantum fluctuations – Whatever! David Darling said it well, “You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining” [On Creating Something From Nothing, New Scientist, vol.151 (Sept 14 1996)].
The graveyard of scientific theories regarding origins is littered with peer reviewed failures that includes the Big Bang and as Sir Fred Hoyle once said “When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers” [The Big Bang Under Attack, Science Digest, vol 92 (May 1984), p.84].
Of course the proponents of evolution do not limit themselves to origins but also like to meddle in life on Earth. This is readily apparent in today’s world with the topic of discussion being Climate Change, the buzz term for human induced global warming aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Most scientists that believe in this hogwash are agnostic at best or simply atheistic. Some have even invented a new religion closely resembling a New Age concept that arose from the dope-smoking, LSD days of the 1960s. Many of them are now in the halls of power around the world and are involved in complex social systems such as environmentalism, multi-culturalism, world federalism, etc. They can be linked to psychological cults such as mental health, self-awareness groups or pseudo-science such as anthropic principles, Gaia hypothesis etc. Many prominent personalities are involved in quasi-religious sects such as Christian Science, etc. They all postulate evolutionism as their scientific rationale that is pantheistic much like the Greeks, Romans and Babylonians espoused mixed with a dose of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha’i, etc. It is important to note that all deny special creation such as the Bible speaks of and all oppose, some vehemently, Biblical Christianity.
With that in mind I was curious of this term ‘Gaia’ and wondered how this fitted into the AGW argument. After all, the term Gaia is supposedly Earth personified as some sort of goddess, you know, ‘Mother Earth’ where she regulates all including humanity within her bounds. It turns out this term was used by Sir James Lovelock, a 1960s throwback whose chemistry career lead him to invent Gaia in 1970. He is one of the original ‘tree-huggers’ that has inspired a political movement that has gone viral ever since. Tim Beardsley writes, “Indeed, Gaia has almost become the official ideology of ‘Green’ parties in Europe: it appeals naturally to scientifically innocent individuals who worry about the environment” [Gaia, Scientific American, vol 261 (Dec 1989), pp.35-36]. I would go so far as to say this type of thinking has infested otherwise sane intellectual people who are ramming their new religion down the throats of objectors without a single thought to the democratic process [cf Aunty BBC article].
Let me present a case in point from a personal perspective. Last year (2010) the Local Body Elections took place in New Zealand during which the group called Transitions Timaru played host to a meet the prospective counsellors’ night. I attended this meeting out of curiosity as it was advertised in the Timaru Herald. The meeting held at Timaru’s Aoraki Polytechnic Campus was attended by Bob Calkin (local man of science that defends climate change as being human induced). I couldn’t help but notice the group consisted mainly of 1960s type people and even made a note that they seemed to spout off a lot of tree-hugging nonsense in their little huddles. Even one of the prospective counsellors had been convinced by this rot (or was he just trying to get their vote, hmm, I wonder?). I could note by the tone of the rhetoric that this Transitions Timaru had organised themselves into a voting bloc in order to influence the local body elections. Well, wouldn’t you know it that is exactly what Gaia inventor James Lovelock proposed in this blurb.
To call environmentalism a cult is an understatement. Many scientists, politicians, and hangers on, as you will see, actively and vocally espouse the tenets of ‘Gaia’. The dangers of such a cult following become apparent when you read of the leading, well recognised advocates’ inner thoughts. ‘Gaia’ is anti-God, anti-Bible and ultimately anti humanity, for its extremes’ advocate a human culling in order to bring equilibrium into the world’s environment. Gaia’s are deeply committed to ‘protecting the earth from humanity’ also known as ‘Deep Ecology’.
Now to some of those well recognised and incredibly influential names that believe in this form of holocaust.
• Dr. Robert Muller. Founder of United Nations University of Peace. He worships Mother Earth and calls her ‘divine Earth’.
• Maurice Strong (Baha’i faith). Once a senior adviser to Kofi Annan (ex UN President whose son was involved in food for oil scam in the 1990s). He developed UN Environment Programme and makes the bold claim that humanity will be extinct in thirty years.
• Sir James Lovelock, the inventor of Gaia. His quote of note is, “By the end of this century the human population will be reduced to a few breeding pairs subsisting near the North Pole.”
• Al Gore (if they have a clergy in Gaia religion then Al would be High Priest). Gore’s claim to fame is his spoilt brat spat at losing the 2002 Presidency of USA to George W. Bush and his now widely acknowledged error riddled film indoctrinating the school children of the world regarding human induced climate change called An Inconvenient Truth. He has also setup Alliance for Climate Protection announcing the need for an ‘army of ten million climate activists.’ He claims the ancients worshipped ‘organised goddess worship’ which was eliminated by Christians in the late 15th century. He wants humanity to get back to this ancient form of worship because ‘armed with such faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the Earth’ (Earth in Balance). Al is not one to let a chance go by for he set up the Chicago Climate Exchange as a hedge-fund for carbon trading (now you see why governments in Europe and tin pot New Zealand adamantly want ETS laws – clever, uhh?).
• Mikhail Gorbachev. Former President of Soviet Union who was instrumental for the abandonment of communist Russia or at least that is what they want it to appear as (have you noticed ex KGB chief Putin is still controlling the strings over there, wink, wink, nod, nod). Gorbachev rubs shoulders with New Age nuts like Shirley Maclaine (Out On A Limb), Dennis Weaver (1960s TV series Gun Smoke), Ted Turner (CNN founder), Jane Fonda (‘Hanoi Jane’ i.e. Vietcong communist sympathiser) and many more. He also has strong ties with Maurice Strong, hence the UN implications.
• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. A ‘Deep Ecology’ fan, for he said ‘in the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve over population’ (from his book If I Were an Animal). He is now 90 as I write this so if he gets his wish the ‘deadly virus’ may come sooner than you think for this nut to have his way.
• Steven Schneider is the lead author of many IPCC reports and editor of Scientists on Gaia. He says ‘the Gaia Hypothesis has now become established in mainstream science’. (This is your clue as to why the world’s lame stream media are reporting constantly that the ‘science is settled’ regarding AGW).
• Sir Richard Branson opportunist entrepreneur who launched the Virgin brand. Fabulously wealthy and intellectually brilliant until he met Al Gore, then he came out with this little gem, ‘my views on global warming were changed 180 degrees’. He then launched his Climate Challenge with the prize of $25 million to anyone who can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The judges for this auspicious completion are Gore, Lovelock and James Hanson (NASA) among others. (Now I said intellectually brilliant to describe Branson but I guess I have to take this back because as any Gaia follower must know CO2 is vital for plants to grow and for humans to expel and I guess that doesn’t inspire much confidence in the judges’ intellect, either).
• Dr Tim Flannery ardent Australian environmentalist/activist/alarmist who has blown a lot of hot CO2 recently regarding the Aussies lack of ETS commitment (maybe we don’t give the Aussie mind-set enough credit regarding this issue – good on ya, mate!)
• Ted Turner, CNN founder who conceived ‘Captain Planet’ the USA children’s enviro propaganda machine and one-time husband to ‘Hanoi Jane’.
If you are still doubtful or now you are even more curious about the political macerations of the Gaia cult, then click on www.green-agenda.com and be further enlightened.
Some very disturbing information coming out of Blighty today that looks reminisce of the infamous Dark Ages where opposing scientific views were stifled. History teaches much and as Santayana revealed that if the lessons are not learned from what history teaches then humanity will simply repeat them. History teaches the lesson of what can happen to those of Galileo’s ilk but it appears the BBC wants to repeat that terrible episode as reports coming out of England would suggest today. Read Melanie Phillips article and judge for yourself.
It amazes me that the environmentalists are always crying foul that interest groups such as oil companies, financial institutions etal are behind the so-called climate change deniers, yet here is an article that shows the ‘green movement’ is not above using the same tactics. Not surprising when you realise that the ‘green movement’ is not green after all but rather a cover for Marxist policy; therefore, it should be called the ‘Red Movement’.
Further more here is another article that shows a refreshing side to climate science. Chris De Freitas stands above the insidious human induced climate change tripe – Good on ya, mate!