Monthly Archives: April 2011

Political payback – Oregon style

OSU tries to expel PhD candidate children of scientist who ran against Cong. Peter DeFazio

By Paul Driessen


Confused visitors will be forgiven for thinking Oregon State University is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Congressman Pete DeFazio and the “progressive-socialist” wing of the Democratic Party. Or for likening what’s going on there to political retribution as practiced in Third World thugocracies.

The idea that three outstanding students – PhD candidates at OSU – could face dismissal, and worse, shortly before receiving their degrees, is simply shocking. That this could be happening because their father had the temerity to challenge an entrenched 12-term Democratic congressman (and OSU earmark purveyor) could make people think the university is in Zimbabwe, not America.

Dr. Art Robinson is president of the nonprofit Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, on the family farm in southwestern Oregon, 180 miles from Corvallis. OISM focuses on biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and aging – and improving emergency preparedness and basic education.

After his wife died in 1988, Robinson raised and home-schooled his six children – all of whom became remarkable scholars, collaborating on research and a popular DVD series on math and science for home-schooled students and their parents. Five of the children have BS degrees in chemistry; one a degree in mathematics. Two earned doctorates in veterinary medicine; one a PhD in chemistry.

The three youngest are all at OSU, working on PhDs in nuclear engineering. They entered the field at a young age, helping their father write and publish the “pro-science, pro-technology, pro-free enterprise” newsletter, Access to Energy, which explains and advocates nuclear energy.

Dr. Robinson is well known for the Oregon Petition Project, which says “there is no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are causing “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere” or disruption of its climate. It urges Congress to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement – and has been signed by more than 32,000 Americans with university degrees in physical sciences (including yours truly and over 9,000 PhDs).

The petition, and Robinson’s support for DDT in combating the malaria pandemic, drew anger and outrage from the political Left, climate chaos industry and “mainstream media,” giving him his first brush with the politics of personal destruction. But it did not prepare him for the lengths and depths his opponents would go to “discourage” his political activities.

With our nation drowning in debt, energy prices skyrocketing, and unaccountable pseudo-scientific agencies like EPA and Interior hobbling economic growth with endless delays and red tape, Dr. Robinson decided to run for Congress. As a scientist and thoughtful, Christian family man, with proven math and budgetary skills – he felt he could bring much needed expertise and perspectives to the House of Representatives.

He challenged DeFazio, who initially figured he would have a cakewalk against this political neophyte. But Robinson raised $1.3 million from over 5,000 individual donors (against DeFazio’s $1.5 million from special interests, MoveOn.org and other contributors), gave numerous speeches and ran a highly effective campaign. With polls showing his lead narrowing, an increasingly desperate DeFazio struck back.

Bristling with a sense of entitlement, the congressman ran print, television and radio ads, painting Robinson as a nutcase who would promote racism, put radioactive wastes in drinking water, end Social Security and Medicare, close schools, repeal taxation of oil companies and destroy Oregon jobs. With help from Rachel Madow and MSNBC, DeFazio claimed Robinson lived off Social Security in a survivalist compound and was funding his campaign with cash from money launderers and drug dealers.

Despite the libelous attacks, Robinson garnered a very respectable 44% of the vote – and promptly announced that he would run for DeFazio’s seat again in 2012. If the soft-spoken father of six thought DeFazio’s campaign had been in the sewers, what happened next beggared belief. Now the targets became Robinson’s three youngest children.

During the election campaign, OSU President Edward Ray and other faculty and administrators improperly used the campus to campaign for DeFazio and against Robinson. Then, almost immediately after the 2010 election, they launched a series of despicable and unprincipled actions designed to ensure that Joshua, Bethany, and Matthew never receive their degrees – regardless of their outstanding academics, examinations and research, or the thousands of hours and tens of thousands of dollars they had invested.

Even though they have been working on their PhDs for almost five years at OSU, and have about a year to go, Joshua has been forbidden access to the equipment he built for his PhD work, while Bethany has been told she will be dismissed from school. Matthew, who turned down a nearly “full ride” from MIT to go to OSU, has been there for two years – but now is waiting for the ax to fall on his work, and on his thesis professor, Dr. Jack Higginbotham, who came to the students’ defense.

Nuclear engineering professor Higginbotham has been at OSU 24 years; he is president of the OSU Faculty Senate and director of a large NASA program on the campus. His inside knowledge of what the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics deans and certain faculty were doing to railroad the Robinson children made him Public Enemy Number One to the department Torquemadas who are trying to destroy his career and get him fired for his impertinence.

Right now, Higginbotham’s salary and career hang by a thread, preserved only by attorneys he has hired to protect himself from OSU attacks. The Robinsons’ studies have been severely disrupted. Meanwhile, however, public outcry in favor of Higginbotham and the students has grown in intensity, especially in Oregon, and a group of prominent alumni donors has offered to pay for the student’s remaining PhD work and legal costs to settle the dispute. (Higginbotham is a nuclear power guy; the culprits are in “nuclear medicine” and generally anti-nuclear power.)

Rather than being chastened, though, President Ray and his staff have refused even to speak with the alumni group. University administrators have become incensed that their actions are now public knowledge, and that alumni and other donors are vocally supporting Higginbotham and the children. Ray and his entourage have circled the academic wagons, stonewalled public inquiries and refused to talk to the Robinsons

They appear to think they own the university, and “academic freedom” means they are entitled to deny academic degrees to children of parents whose politics differ from their own. As more alumni join this effort, however, and the university’s reputation becomes increasingly radioactive, OSU appears to be wavering. Perhaps a dose of sanity may yet take center stage.

Oregon State is a prime example of what happens when educational institutions fall under progressive-socialist control, and dependency on taxpayer handouts from political overseers in Washington. DeFazio and his fellow congressional Democrats gave OSU a reported $27 million in earmark funding during the last legislative cycle alone. That’s $9 million per Robinson student denied a PhD.

No wonder President Ray and the Nuclear Engineering deans have given new meaning to “payback,” while DeFazio smirks in silence in the congressional office that he seems convinced should be his for life.

In depressing testimony to how far America has strayed from its Constitution and founding principles, we have reached the point where congressmen can lavish key supporters with tax dollars – and in return get votes, campaign contributions, rallies and volunteers on our campuses … and be assured of vicious retribution against the families of anyone rash enough to run against them.

If you want to read all the gory details in this sordid case, visits www.OregonStateOutrage.com. If you want to tell OSU what you think of its actions, send a message to President Ray at pres.office@oregonstate.edu and todd.simmons@oregonstate.edu in the OSU press office.

If you thought the last Robinson-DeFazio bout was a humdinger, stick around. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and humans are not killing the planet.

 

It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind "man-made global warming" were fudged, the physics was misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.

 

Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication. That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed to be recycled in the atmosphere and its effects worsened by the dreaded burning of fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise, would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).

 

A team of dedicated international experts, known as the ‘Slayers,’ all highly qualified in their respective fields, spent the past year deliberating over the deep-rooted errors in the calculations employed in the greenhouse gas theory. Their findings are devastating to all those who claim carbon dioxide and the ‘greenhouse effect’ heats our atmosphere.

 

The standard argument of a clique of climatologists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is as follows:

 

·         A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)

·         The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.

·         This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.

·         The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

 

This is the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) which has been put under the  microscope by a team of professors of physics, mathematics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology who joined forces to test the claims of a discredited clique of IPCC government funded climatologists.
 

This group of 20+ specialist scientists has given the infant (and generalist) science of climatology a much-need shake up. Indeed, the ‘Slayers’ say a monumental paradigm shift is now very much under way.

 

Below, in simplified form, we examine in three parts how their brilliant analysis has eviscerated one of the most costly and mistaken theories of modern science.

 

Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide

 

In a recent ground breaking paper Professor Nasif Nahle proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) actually works as a coolant when it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to induce the air temperature to cool not a warm.

 

Physicist, Joe Postma, in his epic debunk further describes the correct application of the laws of thermodynamics to address how the thermal capacity (or conductivity) works with the ‘coolant’ CO2. As Postma tells us,

 

“Carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases merely serve to make the atmosphere cooler in daytime, warmer at nighttime. This is what empirical evidence tells us.

 

He asks us to think of how this interpretation differs from what the uneducated and pseudo scientists say that is "the greenhouse effect makes the planet warmer than it should be.” But we know that in truth what we actually observe is somewhat entirely different.

 

 In the future, says Joe, people will declare: "The atmosphere keeps the planet from getting too hot in the daytime, and too cold at night time".

 

Just that simple realization alone kills the so-called ‘blanket’ analogy of greenhouse gas theorists stone dead.

 

Step Two: How the IPCC Picked Wrong Numbers from the Get-go

 

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers. It may be ‘good enough’ for government work but falls far short of robustness when you’re planning on restructuring the whole world’s economy!

 

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

 

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

 

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

 

Postma, a recent addition to the team sums up how much getting those first numbers right matters:

 

“We all agree that the atmosphere has an "atmosphere effect." But what is of interest to us is how this effect changes if the properties of the atmosphere changes (a little).”

In this excellent paper geologist, Timothy Caseygives a calculation for how much temperature variation will be caused by changes in CO2. It tells us:

"If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide.”

What Casey shows is that in reality, a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by a measly one percent and given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36 percent.

Casey finds,

“That would represent a 0.36 percent increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18 percent and a ceiling cooling of 0.18 percent of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth’s surface.”

“However, even if this wasn’t a negligible enough effect, Casey finds the proverbial doubling of CO2 would only contribute a change of 0.0040C at the surface”.

 

Step Three: Exposing the Idiocy

 

Groupthink is ‘Step Three’ in our explanation of how climatology got itself into such a muddle. Here’s a perfect example of scientific idiocy displayed by someone who ought to know better. Postma shows how a reality disconnect by one such theorist makes a mockery of IPCC numbers when applied to the real world. He explains,

 

“Yesterday a professor tried to tell me that a blackbody (BB) would heat itself up if its radiation would shine back on it – if it was surrounded completely by a perfect mirror.

 

I told him that all that would happen is you’d get a standing electromagnetic wave between the BB and the mirror, with a frequency spectrum and flux density equal to that of the BB – there’d be no spontaneous increase of temperature.  50C is 50C and there’s no way to get more than 50C, from 50C.  The only way to get more than 50C is to bring in some outside work or something hotter than 50C.”

Postma then enlightened the perplexed professor that it’s impossible to make candles or insulation warm itself by its own radiation.  “If we could make a candle burn hotter by reflecting it’s light back onto it, that would have been discovered long ago.”

 The Slayers thus ask us to put it all in terms of radiation and conduction being analogous modes of heat transfer.  Then it becomes plainly obvious and ridiculous. 

Like his learned colleagues Postma suggests climatologists apply a little more common sense and joined up thinking; their heat transport equations should properly be addressed in terms of conduction such that radiation and conduction are simply MODES of heat transfer. If an object can heat itself via its own, or "colder" radiation, then it should also be able to heat itself by conducting with itself, or conducting with a cold body.

“An object conducting with itself to make itself hotter?  What the heck does that even mean?  An object conducting with a colder one and thereby becoming hotter?  I don’t think so,” insists Postma.

 Thus when we start to accept that conduction and radiation are analogous modes of heat transfer, then it dawns on us all that the laws work the same way with both of them.

Therefore, by working through this ‘Three Step Greenhouse Effect Debunk’ we are left with only one conclusion: IPCC junk (generalist) science is well and truly busted by the specialists in their fields.

 


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by ‘Coolant’ Carbon Dioxide

Science professor, a former global warming believer now denier, publishes groundbreaking paper to prove carbon dioxide cools, not warms, our atmosphere.

Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.” Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”

Global Warming Scare is “Anti-science”

 

In an astonishing personal U-turn Nahle has taken on the task of demonstrating that the demonization of CO2 was premised on a faulty hypothesis. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson. Anderson is one of eight coauthors of the controversial book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ that also falsifies the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Nasif says, “Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture.”

Nasif says, “To my surprise, I found that the hypothesis was flawed and that the AGW proponents were inventing variables and constants. As I starting to apply the correct data and algorithms, I was realizing that the whole hypothesis was wrong from the physics standpoint."

The 60-year-old’s career is now firmly focused on climate-related research; in 2010 he began working on Climate Change and Biodiversity at the Superior School of Biology, University Juarez of the State of Durango. Nahle is so converted in his thinking that he now calls the greenhouse gas theory, ”antiscience" and "pseudoscience.”

 

Read more here.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Top Climate Scientist on Radio to Expose Global Warming Fraud


MUST LISTEN: World leading climate professor exposes the global warming hysteria in exclusive
radio interview.

On matters of climate change no one is more qualified to speak than Professor Richard Lindzen. Here he castigates the moral delusions of a minority of well meaning but misguided few that have failed to convey to the public the true context of a very modest rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years. 

Lindzen describes those who claim we "must act now on climate change" as "deluded" and "not addressing the science." He was particularly addressing Australian Prime Minster, Julia Gillard’s hysterical insistence that Australian taxpayers should cripple their economy to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide for a benefit that nation would not see "for a thousand years," according to her own adviser, Tim Flannery, an environmentalist and global warming activist.

Richard Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.   He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., ’64, S.M., ’61, A.B., ’60, Harvard University).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout

Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout

 

Esteemed climate scientist, Tim Ball faces two costly courtroom libel battles. Here he reveals his concerns and appeals for help with his legal fees.

 

Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long taken a brave stand in speaking out on corruption and unethical practices. Two global warming doomsayers Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver are now suing Tim for libel with the backing of Big Green donors.

 

Many suspect the deep-pocketed David Suzuki Foundation is bankrolling Weaver and Mann. Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.” Vancouver libel lawyer, Roger D. McConchie is the well-paid legal attack dog.

 

Critics suspect that the Suzuki Foundation is throwing money at the case in the hope that his target, who has no big corporate backers, will quit as his legal fees spiral. But Ball is determined he won’t be bounced out of this contest.

 

Below is this author’s (JOS) forthright interview with Dr. Ball (TB).

 

INTERVIEW

 

JOS: Now that you’ve been hit with two very expensive libel suits in very short time it appears that well-funded environmentalists are gunning to gag climate skeptics using the law.  Is this a new strategy by Big Green and what impact do you believe this will have on the wider climate debate?

 

TB: I am not aware of specific evidence of such a campaign or the financing. The practice of bringing lawsuits has been going on for some time but it was spasmodic. More recently, that is over the last year or so, it has increased, particularly with the charges by Weaver through McConchie against the National Post. One change was the addition of important people to the Suzuki Board back in 2009, such as John Lefebvre, but also included Westport Innovation CEO Elaine Wong, that brought additional money as Chris Horner pointed out.  Another addition to the Board was equally disturbing, not because of the money but because of the compromise of integrity. George Stroumboulopolos is the host of a weekly program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). 

 

Other increased activities centered on publication of Hoggan and Littlemore’s book Climate Cover Up. This book includes attacks on specific people including me. It makes the usual list of false charges including that I am paid by the oil companies. Then there was Weaver’s book Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a warming World, with a cover note by Suzuki that says, A gripping narrative, this should be the final alarm. 


JOS: Desmogblog, funded by the Suzuki Foundation, has been ‘showcasing’ such legal attacks on scientists like you. Do you fear this new trend towards litigation is the inevitable course for the climate debate, and if so do you see any positive outcome for science?

 

TB: As noted above this is not new litigation but the intensity has increased. As you also know, people like Fred Singer received such threats a few years ago like me. I have mixed feelings about the activities. Personally it is intimidating because of the costs involved if nothing else. Legally it is a threat to free speech and, in my opinion, a misuse of the law to silence open debate. What has been interesting is the cultural reaction to the legal challenges. Americans immediately recognize it as a threat to free speech, while Canadians are slower to acknowledge that threat. In the long term I think exposure of these tactics, particularly in the context that they are losing the scientific debate will backfire. It will be seen for what it is a use of the law as a form of ad hominem attacks. 

I am also concerned that the credibility of science in general is in jeopardy because too many scientists, including Suzuki, Weaver, Mann and others have been involved directly or indirectly in the process. 

JOS: You obtained your doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College way back in 1983 before much of the hype began about global warming. Yet your critics say you merely shill for ‘Big Oil’ and that’s why you “attacked” Dr. Weaver and the IPCC. Is that true?

 

TB: This is absolutely false. Here is the story. Several years ago a group of professional people in Alberta, including engineers, hydrologists, geologists were very angry about the bad science involved in climate research a particularly through the IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol. We met at Calgary Airport and out of that came the group Friends of Science (FOS). Their problem was they were based in Calgary, Alberta, the Canadian centre of the oil industry. Also some of them, because of their expertise had worked in the oil patch. I warned them to focus solely on the science and to make sure all funding was at arms length. They did both, with funding being handled through the University of Calgary. I acted as an advisor and contributed articles as well as spoke a couple of times at their AGMs.   

 

David Anderson, The Minister of Natural resources said that all Canadian climate experts had been consulted on the Kyoto Protocol. Eight of us, all climate experts travelled to Ottawa and held a press conference to say we had not been consulted. The Minister counteracted us by announcing that he would release the governments Kyoto policy in the house at the same time as the press conference. This was amazing since no previous mention was made despite questions by the media. His move had the effect of drawing away virtually all media attention. 

 

I received $800 for travel and expenses and incorrectly thought FOS paid it. Subsequently it turned out that it was paid by APCO a PR company. Then it was disclosed that FOS had received a donation of, as I recall $12,000 from an energy company. It was I understand about 7% of their total donations, the rest was from private citizens. Very quickly my belief that I was paid by FOS was converted to the charge that I was therefore in the pay of FOS who were in the pay of the oil companies. The fact that $800 was about 6% of the $12,000 was of no consequence. The issue, as it appears with everything they do is to take something and distort ti or use it out of context knowing that once it is out there is not pulling it back. Hoggan’s skills as  PR  expert are manifest. It is also why I find it amusing that the very property of the internet they exploits is being attacked by McConchie in his charges against the National Post on behalf of Weaver and his demand that I contact web sites that have repeated my article. The futility of that exercise was that most were not interested and also some of the sites they listed indicated they had merely googled keywords and came up with completely inappropriate places like a tennis site apparently because my name is ball. 

 

JOS: It appears Weaver and Mann have been given a ‘blank check’ to use expensive lawyers against you. Are you and your lawyer confident you can win, and if so why?

 

TB: I am confident that if it comes down to a science debate I can carry the day. I am encouraged in this because to date all have consistently refused or avoided debate. I base this claim on the almost five year challenge the cross-Canada Roy Green radio show has held out for someone to debate, with no takers. My lawyer’s main concern is whether I can afford the defense. The problem is I have no choice because if I don’t respond or say I was completely at fault they would pursue damages for defamation and all costs. 

 

I am also confident that my lawyer says that all charges of defamation are unfounded and the only error was the incorrect claim that Weaver had resigned from the IPCC. I believe it was an honest mistake because the information was provided in the article with citations. We have acknowledged and pre-emptively apologized for this error. 


JOS: Who is paying your legal bills?

 

TB: I am. I have paid out about $10,000 so far and am rapidly depleting my savings, these are meager because the only research funding I received during my career was from the National Museum of Canada. This occurred primarily because my research of reconstructing past climate records was deemed historical climatology. At that time it did not fit the very definitive line between Arts and Science research. The museum understood the problem.  

 

JOS: I’ve heard you’ve started your new blog and you’ll be selling climate science pamphlets to help raise donations to pay your legal fees. Is this true?

 

TB: Yes. I had worked through other blogs and web pages to date, but disappointments, including being fired from a magazine that I wrote a column for monthly for 17 years led me to go it alone. The firing was just one of many instances where I know from direct reports that it was due to pressure on management because of my skeptical views. The blog allows me control and the opportunity to point out what is wrong with many of the stories appearing in the media. I am planning a series of booklets of about 80 to 100 page in length that provide explanations of major issues in the debate. The idea is that they are short, will fit in a pocket, and deal with one issue at a time. Since they will appear as a series people will be able to have in hand the answers to major issues in the debate in language that non-scientists can understand. I hope to sell these booklets through the web site and use the money to offset the legal costs. Meanwhile we continue to survive on pensions (wife and mine) and small amounts made from public presentations. 

JOS: You were the lead author of the successful yet controversial new book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon.’ What is your focus in the next ‘Slayers’ book due out later this year?

 

TB: I am pleased to be associated with the Sky Dragon book. It has raised controversy and that is healthy because the big problem has been the complete suppression of debate, even among the so-called skeptics. My chapter in the second book speaks to the deception within a deception that gives lie to the scientists involved in the IPCC. The science report itemizes all the problems including limitations of data, lack of understanding of mechanisms compounded in the inadequacies of the computer models. The public perception is that the IPCC science is solid and certain that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The difference between the public perception and what the Science report attest is deliberately achieved by the structure of the IPCC system that has a Summary for Policymakers released before the Science report is available. It is understandable that the Mainstream Media and the public are unaware of the differences but it is not credible that the scientists involved are unaware. Their silence is deafening. 

JOS: What else has really struck a chord with you in the Great Global Warming Debate?

 

TB: People find it hard to believe that the entire world could be so easily misled by so few people. They, particularly Maurice Strong, established control of all government weather agencies by co-opting the World Meteorological Organization. This gave them control of data collection and archives within each nation then its global dissemination. Each national weather agency controlled politicians and funding of research. They directed funding to one side of the science debate thus allowing later the circular arguments that claims that most scientists and most publications prove the science. The national agencies also determined who served on the IPCC thus providing complete control. The group of scientists who controlled the entire process became so small that Professor Wegman was able to name names in his report to the US Congress. As he demonstrated, they controlled the peer-review process thus allowing them to further control the publication process.     

JOS: What has been toughest part of your skeptic’s journey so far?

 

TB: It is very difficult, especially when you have paid such a high price financially, emotionally, and in people’s public and personal views. It is not easy when your children, wife and friends hear a radio person say, "Oh, Tim Ball, he is that nut job paid by the oil companies that doesn’t believe in climate change." It is not easy when people tell you that you are a fool for not using your knowledge and abilities to go with the flow and make a lot of money. As someone said after Climategate it must be nice to be vindicated. I replied there is no pleasure in I told you so. It is not easy when you are very aware of the sacrifices your family has been subjected to because you are determined to demand proof and the truth. As Voltaire said, It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.

 

Thank you, Dr. Ball and good luck with the fund raising for both your cases.


 
Visit Dr. Ball’s site ‘A Different Perspective’ where you can read more of Tim’s expert insight and donate to his legal fund that is being handled independently by the Frontier Centre and Tim’s attorney (‘Donate’ button is in top right corner of Tim’s page).

 

Note: Donors will be issued with a tax receipt on request.

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

US Govt Caught Hiding Earthquake Data to Discredit Climate Skeptic Expert?


New evidence shows US is not reporting worrying increase in earthquake activity predicted by independent skeptic expert.

 

Independent observers are monitoring an upsurge in seismic activity that began occurring across the United States during April 5 and 6 2011. It is feared that an earthquake similar in magnitude or greater than that which recently devastated Japan may hit the U.S. any time.

A live feed from the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) internet seismic server inexplicably went offline several times in a two-day period at a time when it appears increased seismic activity was occurring across the United States. The ANSS has offered no explanation for the anomaly.

 
The tremors are occurring at the precise time forecasted by Piers Corbyn, a leading British astrophysicist and weather forecaster. Corbyn believes heightened solar activity impacts not only our climate but also sets off earthquakes. Lately charged particles from solar flares have impacted our planet’s upper atmosphere at speeds of 560 miles per second.

 

Citizen Scientists Expose Government Cover Up

 

Reaction in the blogosphere has been instant. A Youtube video New Madrid — mulptile charts show movement — USGS censors data again’ graphically illustrates how increased seismic activity is showing up via publicly accessible government data yet the U.S. authorities themselves are not reporting this latest worrying development.

 

The main agency responsible, United States Geological Survey (USGS) is another arm of corporate government like NASA, the EPA, the FDA which has been under sustained criticism for similarly manipulating global warming data.

 
Instruments show signs of significant seismic activity in a wide arc across Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia. A 3.6 magnitude quake (minor) yesterday occurred in Greenbriar, Arkansas but conspicuously, the Helicorder for Portageville Missouri showed nothing on their maps. According to Richter scale seismic activity of 6 or above is considered ‘strong’ and is destructive in areas up to about 160 kilometres (100 mi) across in populated areas. A magnitude 3.6 quake caused Nevada’s PEPCON fuel plant explosion in 1988.

 

Latest Graphic Earthquake Images Shown on Youtube

 

In a 9-minute video commentator, dutchsinse suggests that such a broad spread of so-called “harmonic movement” across the continent as “concerning.” Coincidentally, the Pacific Northwest volcano webcorders also showed earthquake activity for this same period.

 

‘Dutch’ is also concerned that government funded researchers may be intentionally censoring inconvenient seismic activity that would lend credence to Corbyn’s claims that solar-lunar effects are instrumental not only on Earth’s climate but also on earthquake activity.

 

Corbyn has only recently launched his new earthquake forecasting service encouraged by the dramatic upsurge of interest in his highly successful long-range weather forecasting. It seems he may also be well set to provide an equally indispensible public service with his earthquake predictions.

 

On his WeatherAction.com website Corbyn announced:

"The 6-9th April is our first major (Trial) Earthquake risk period of April and comes with related extreme weather events forecasts. In these trial periods we expect an increase in the serious M6.0 and above quakes in quake vulnerable locations (and related increases in lower level activity) around the world such as the Pacific ‘ring of fire’. This includes the WEST USA which in this time period is probably more vulnerable than for decades.”

 
Coincidentally, the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management issued a press release (April 5, 2011) cancelling a media conference  scheduled  for yesterday on earthquake preparedness.


Public Not Being Advised as to the Dangers

 

The greatest concern is for the Yellowstone National Park’s super volcano that also recently took a deep "breath" causing miles of ground to rise dramatically. Yellowstone’s caldera, which covers a 25- by 37-mile (40- by 60-kilometer) area of Wyoming, is an ancient crater formed after the last big blast, some 640,000 years ago.

 

Volcanologists say the simmering giant volcano is due another cataclysmic event. Such an eruption would be a thousand times more powerful than Mount St. Helens’s 1980 eruption.


Concerned citizens may wish to
Twitter
@USGS and demand to know why they are not reporting the data about these known earthquake events.

 


6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized