Monthly Archives: April 2012

Ron Paul Arises to End an Era of Puppet U.S. Presidents?

Ron Paul wins Washington and is on course to secure the five state delegations needed for GOP 2012 presidential nomination. Mainstream political hacks and the U.S. Congress are running scared.

“Ron who?” Is the retort of those sated on a mainstream TV diet – whether be it of the CNN or FOX variant. But underestimate him at your peril.  Dr. Ron Paul, in the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.

2012 U.S. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

2012 U.S. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Dr. Paul is feted as the only presidential candidate vowing to bring an end to Federal Reserve banking scam and more and more voters are waking up to the significance of that message.

Paul is now increasingly likely to win the five state delegations he needs (starting with North Dakota, Minnesota and Maine). Within weeks of mainstream reports that the Iowa race was called for Rick Santorum came the first major signal that Ron Paul’s grinding tenacity at grassroots level was paying off. Santorum pulled out of the race and at worst, Ron Paul will take more than half of Iowa’s delegates.

So what magic, if any, is there about Dr. Paul? First, Ron Paul’s popularity online makes a mockery of the mainstream media’s stubborn efforts to shun and ignore him. And when you surf the net you see it’s not just the over-40’s who are warming to Paul. Even my switched on 20-year-old son reports an upswell of youth for Ron Paul. Young adults are realizing that a Paul presidency would be a breath of fresh air after the stench of the war-ridden and corrupt Bush-Obama puppet years.

Now I am neither a Democrat nor Republican. I follow issues, not parties and it seems a lot of Americans are like that, too. Disaffected voters are angered by the relentless decay and corruption in our modern democracies. And any frontline candidate – whether red or blue – calling for an end to the Fed Reserve banking scam needs taking seriously.

President Appeal to the ‘Ninety-Nine Percent?

Ron Paul does seem switched onto the Big Issues. As elsewhere there is growing concern about a self-serving global elite. The “Ninety-nine Percent” of voters  appear increasingly concerned about losing individual freedoms in a narrative that paints the richest in our society as undermining and/or stealing hard won freedoms paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers (and mothers!).

Dr. Paul is selling that idea on his platform for change and identifies that the insidious five-year long  international banking crisis just won’t go away. Part of the problem, he says, is those corrupt politicians who persist with the bogus meme that taxpayers must prop up the crooked banks because they are “too big to fail.” The message strikes a chord when we realize that if banks are too big to fail then we can never truly hold them accountable. So the questions becomes: how will the people ever be saved from a repeat of this self-inflicted crisis and the downward spiral of bankster and corporate corruption.

It’s hard to argue with Paul that reform is needed in both the political and financial institutions –  top down. If reform doesn’t come then no amount of expensive sticking plaster can  prevent the further collapse of fiat currencies and after that, the fractional reserve banking system itself. This system unfairly favors a tiny Anglo-American clique of uber-wealthy oligarchs happy to lumber us all deeper into eternal debt. This is a keynote point that embarrasses Obama’s lackadaisical administration and the other mega-rich  presidential hopefuls.

Dark Horse Outs Corruption as ‘Man of the People’

Ron Paul may well become the people’s champion of truth.  At least he is honestly informing the public – on both the Right and the Left – that politics is corrupted in both camps. For too long politicians have been the puppets playing out on phony cyclical stage of adversarial party political dog fighting.

And it isn’t just Obama who’s a fraud. Go back as far as you like on the list of U.S. presidents – all sock puppets to the banking elite. The Bushes, the Clintons, Reagan, Carter, Nixon – played by the bankers in the masquerade to assuage an electorate into believing that so-called “right” versus “left” was something other than parliamentary pantomime puppetry.

But now people are listening to Paul across party, racial, ideological – even national lines –  because it’s not just America that’s in trouble. In Western Europe once sovereign nations are dissatisfied with a tyrannical European bureaucratic government increasingly out of control and seemingly unaccountable. Voters in all these democracies want something done before our rights and freedoms disappear for good.

Perhaps the glimmer of hope has come along. Perhaps Ron Paul,  the “intellectual godfather” of the Tea Party movement is the true advocate of the people – and what a novel concept that is.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Royal Society Hammered in Latest Plug of Post Normal Science

Britain’s once illustrious Royal Society is exposed again selling out to an elitist agenda promoting de-population and eco-evangelism.

Royal Society is Big Green Propaganda Central

Royal Society is Big Green Propaganda Central

Latest whistleblower on this disturbing trend is Ben Pile of Climate Resistance. Pile pens a punishing new piece exposing the sinister rise of Malthusianism cloaked in post-normal platitudes. With his article. ‘The Royal Society Takes Another Step Away from Science ‘ Pile hammers the RS hard declaring:

The scientific academy has sensed that it in today’s world, it wields political power. As the call for evidence suggests, the Royal Society has already decided that population is a problem, and the size of the population ought to be managed by political power, not by the individuals it consists of.”

The Royal Society is shown abandoning its faltering campaign to trumpet man-made global warming alarm to switch to alarm about so-called over population; all in the same anti-science Malthusian vein that humans are inherently “bad.”

Back in October 2010, the same author had written an article for Spiked that first identified the sinister politicization of this once venerable institution:

It is no coincidence that, as it was preparing to moderate its statements on climate change, the Society has been seeking to intervene in the debate about population. In July this year, it announced that it would be ‘undertaking a major study to investigate how population variables will affect and be affected by economies, environments, societies and cultures’.”

If ever there was a compelling argument made for the need of a truly independent and non-political forum for science voices here it is.

A new forum for non-politicization of science is Principia Scientific International. It takes much the same hard-hitting line as Pile to denounce national academies such as the Royal Society that expound political dogma in place of scientific fact. The Royal Society has skewed science itself by abandoning it’s legitimate role as a powerful mode of inquiry to promote a pretence of science by exploiting a position of political authority.

As such we now live in an age where creeping rise of junk “post-normal” science threatens the traditional norms of evidence-based research. Read more of Pile’s piece here.


Filed under Uncategorized

Britain’s “Wettest Drought” Embarrasses Government Agency and Big Green Media

As April deluges soak Britain a top long-range weather forecaster denounces error-prone Environment Agency and mainstream media spin over “widespread” drought claims.

Londoner Piers Corbyn, the maverick long-range forecaster of has poured more cold water over Britain’s discredited Environment Agency and gullible eco-crazed national newspapers. Corbyn reveals how self-serving pro-green zealots obstruct his efforts to help give Britons a chance of a more effective national long-range weather prediction service.

Mainstream media organ, The Guardian typifies the lunatic element. The paper’s Environment pages (April 16, 2012) have been gushing constant drought gloom and doom to a dwindling flock of readers.

The Guardian’s Big Green drips Fiona Harvey and Madeleine Cuff have been pouring on the spin from  the UK’s Environment Agency about a ”Wildlife and farming disaster warning as drought spreads across England Officials warn dry spell could last into next year and hosepipe bans could be extended to cover larger areas.“

Oh, really? As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. Contrast and compare with a different picture emerging the very same day with a flush of photographs from Corbyn fans showing reservoirs and dams filled to capacity – so much for Harvey and Cuff ‘s “widespread” drought.

Howden Dam in Derbyshire on April 16, 2012

Howden Dam in Derbyshire on April 16, 2012

Drought? What Drought?

Indeed, the numbers also contradict The Guardian’s (and Environ –mental Agency’s) story. April 2012 has so far turned out to be the wettest since 2000 with over 55mm of rain falling compared with the April average of 54mm and there’s still another week to go!

Not only are the climate realists at WeatherAction declaring this Britain’s “wettest ever drought.” BBC weatherman, Paul Hudson is also conceding that, “April could end up the wettest on record in Lincolnshire.”

Photos from Russ in Chesterfield, Derbyshire show major dams at the Derwent Valley are brimming with H2O. Russ reports that the ‘Howden,’ the ‘Derwent’ and ‘Ladybower’ are close to overflowing. “I have seen the Derwent dam go from 5o percent to full in a little over 5 days,” reports Russ. The Derwent and Howden dams both hold around 2 billion gallons, while the huge Ladybower dam holds 6.1 billion gallons.

Derwent Dam: April 16 2012

Derwent Dam: April 16 2012

So why have those well-funded government prophets gotten this so wrong yet again? As usual, the loquacious Londoner, Piers Corbyn, is awash with answers.

Planning and Infrastructure Crisis As UK Population Rises

Quite simply confusion reigns from the top down. Corbyn is exasperated at how such “experts” are constantly drowning in a sea of water tables, evaportation rates, regional contrasts, deluges versus steady rain etc. In a previous period of “drought” Corbyn reveals he had discussions with certain water company and environment agency experts as to why there wasn’t enough rain even though there seemed to be plenty.

WeatherAction’s frontman explains, “Even though the government and the public were desperately worried that not enough rain would come the Environment Agency didn’t want to know my forecasts (even though they agreed I had skill).”

And boy, does Corbyn have skill! His WeatherAction forecasts are consistently waterproof showing “85 percent accuracy”  months ahead, as affirmed by peer-reviewed scientific studies. That’s why Corbyn is seeing a tsunami of front-page headlines in less biased sections of Britain’s national press. Any rational taxpayer will want to know what excuse the Environment Agency has for not wanting the UK’s most successful long-range weather forecaster onboard when there are weather-related government crisis meetings.

Corbyn explains the fiasco by drawing a comparison with the failures of a previous government. “It reminded me of when senior MPs were in endless discussions with Gordon Brown [when he was Chancellor] on his application of ‘The Five Tests’ about whether we join the Euro or not. The answers were so conditionally interrelated as to be incomprehensible and all you knew was that ONLY Gordon understood his “Five Tests” and only Gordon could judge the results and, well Gordon would decide,” laments Corbyn.

Meanwhile, the Environment Agency continues to muddy the waters with it’s nonsensical drought warning claiming that the latest deluges are insufficient to alleviate drought conditions. As such, they say “water restrictions could continue beyond Christmas.”

This has inflamed Corbyn who relentlessly challenges Britain’s ‘greenest government ever’ that claims to champion measures to tackle climate change. But Corbyn says that the real ‘crisis’ is not so much a shortage of rain but a shortfall in  investment – including desalination.

The irony is that the politics of climate change has not allowed for a drought in the UK – all this by a country surrounded by water. Corbyn has a point. If the government truly feared weird weather due to so-called man-made climate change then it wouldn’t have dried up on investment plans for desalination plants; and as per Christopher Booker’s financial analysis, its all less to do with global warming and more about a national population increase of 10 percent since the last drought of 1976.

Critics are losing patience with successive governments that for too long have pandered to fringe eco-lunacy lobbyists and profiteering water utility companies. Britain desperately needs and deserves a better long-range weather forecasting service. As such the  Environment Agency is due a major clean out. And let’s not forget the drip-drip affect of repeatedly inaccurate weather predictions that forced the Met Office to pull the plug on trying to compete with Corbyn. As such they no longer publish any long range weather forecasts. So a rinse and repeat would do wonders for the discredited Met Office as well to purge its computer models of junk science based on mythical “greenhouse gas warming.”

In the final analysis, common sense dictates it’s time for Corbyn to be given a chance. His swollen ranks of supporters are in no doubt he will go down a storm if allowed a place at the decision-makers’ table.


Filed under Uncategorized

Global Warming from CO2, All Politics – No Science!

Global Warming from CO2, All Politics – No Science!

Guest post by Robert A. Ashworth


Some meteorologists have blamed water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere for warming the earth. Below is an excerpt from a paper1 written by meteorologists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “Climate models used for estimating effects of increases in greenhouse gases show substantial increases in water vapor as the globe warms and this increased moisture would further increase the warming.” The NOAA got it completely backwards about water vapor and CO2 – they cool the earth! Al Gore did something similar in his bogus “Inconvenient Truth” presentation of the Vostok Ice Core data.

Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Documentary has Cause and Effect Reversed

In this documentary, Al Gore fudged the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 line graphs so it would show a CO2 spike coming first but alas the real graph showed just the opposite. See data, in a shorter time frame (240,000 Years Before Present rather than 420,000 years) to make it easier to see which came first, Figure 1.

Vostok Ice Core Data

Vostok Ice Core Data

Figure 1. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data 2.

It is clearly seen that a global warming spike (blue line) always comes first. This warms the oceans, which reduces the solubility of CO2 in water and results in the liberation of CO2 from the oceans over 800 years later. Gore gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place, but then again he is a politician. What is so disturbing is that many climatologists have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple and does not require a rocket scientist. If what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; the cause comes first to produce an effect. Gore is a journalist, not a scientist, yet many people believe him, proving that if you are well known you can say anything even if it is absolutely wrong and many will follow you.

The author also found that most physicists, climatologists and meteorologists in recent times have not taken courses in thermodynamics so many don’t understand the first two laws of thermodynamics.

First Law: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Second Law:Without additional energy input, heat can only be transferred from a hotter to cooler body, never vice versa. Our cooler atmosphere cannot radiate energy that will heat up earth’s warmer surface. Although all bodies in the universe radiate and absorb radiant energy, the warmer body always emits more energy than it receives back from a cooler body; a cooler body can never warm a warmer body.

A Scientific Truth

Any mass between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace – you will feel cooler! Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, you feel cooler.

Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling. Why is this? If there were no atmosphere, all of the radiant energy from the sun would hit the earth. However, with an atmosphere, a portion of the incoming sun’s rays are absorbed or reflected away from earth by striking the gaseous molecules and dust particles, so less radiant energy hits the earth and the earth is cooler because it has atmosphere, see Figure 2.

Earth with and without an atmosphere

Earth with and without an atmosphere

Figure 2. Earth without and with an atmosphere

Everyone knows that cloud cover at night (more insulation) prevents the earth from cooling off as fast as it does when there are no clouds. However, on a relatively clear night if a cloud goes overhead you cannot feel any warming effect of the cloud, so this insulating effect is shown to be very minimal compared to the daytime effect. No rocket science is required here, just common sense. If common sense isn’t good enough for you there is also scientific proof.

Do Most Scientists Support Global Warming?

No, most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise! In the United States 31,478 scientists, signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement and of these, 9,029 have PhDs3.

Further, U.S. Senator James Inhofe 4 (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on his web site states, the over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The author is included in both lists and this paper tells why.

Does Atmospheric CO2 Change Correlate with Earth Temperature Change?

Does a correlation exist between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature? No, that does not exist. Does an increase in CO2 cause the earth’s temperature to increase? No, look at Figure 3 for temperatures and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere for the past fifty years. The data for this graph was published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. Apparently those working at NOAA never analyzed their own data. Even a non-scientist can see there is no correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature. The CO2 has been on a continuous upward trend – not true for the earth’s temperature.

NOAA Land-Ocean Temperature versus CO2

Figure 3. Earth Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 Concentration 5.

CFC Destruction of Ozone 6 Although CO2 had nothing to do with temperature rise, from 1966 to 1998, man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or Freon) destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere and caused these zones to cool by 1.37 oC 7. The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 10 inches of the earth up by 0.48 oC during that time frame. So of the 0.62 oC rise, 77% was caused by stratospheric ozone loss. Ozone destruction made it look like there may have been a correlation with a CO2 increase from 1978 to 1998 but not before or after those times. In 2007, the stratosphere started warming back up but it is estimated it will take some 50 to 100 years to get back to normal because CFCs are very stable.

In 1978, the USA banned the use of Freon in hair sprays and other aerosols. In 1987, the world governments, through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), agreed to limit the production and release of a variety of CFCs at a meeting in Montreal, Canada. The agreement is known as the Montreal Protocol. CFC production was stopped in developed countries in 1987 and in 2010 was stopped in developing countries (Mexico, China, etc).

Human Made Emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Do you realize that CO2 emissions created by man’s activities, combustion of fuels, etc. (called anthropogenic emissions) is miniscule compared to the emissions of CO2 from nature? Table 1

was developed by the IPCC. It shows annual CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from both nature and man and how much of the CO2 emitted is re-absorbed by nature.

Global Sources and Absorption of CO2

Global Sources and Absorption of CO2


Using the table above in combination with a total concentration of 392 ppmv of CO2 seen in the atmosphere in December 2011, one sees that the increase in CO2 caused by all of man’s activities amounted to only 11.5 ppmv. The amount of CO2 from man is a mouse milk quantity compared to nature’s emissions. If we eliminated worldwide, all manmade CO2 emissions, we would go back to the level in December 2005 and it was warmer then than in December 2011.

Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, nature causes plant growth to increase via photosynthesis which is an endothermic (cooling) reaction. For every pound of biomass formed some 10,000 Btu are removed from the atmosphere. CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is liberated. Further, a doubling of CO2 will increase the photosynthesis rate by 30 to 100%, depending on temperature and available moisture 8. More CO2 is absorbed by the plants due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere available for conversion to carbohydrates. Nature therefore has in place a built-in mechanism to regulate the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that will always completely dwarf man’s feeble attempts to regulate it. Further, no regulation is necessary because CO2 is not a pollutant; it is part of the animal-plant life cycle. Without it, life would not exist on earth

Misnamed” Greenhouse Gases Cool the Earth

Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited commercial aviation over the United States for three days following the attacks. This presented a unique opportunity to study the temperature of earth with and without jet airplane contrails.

Dr. David Travis, atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin, along with two others, looked at temperatures for those three days and compared them to other days when planes were flying. They analyzed data from about 4,000 weather stations throughout the lower 48 states (U.S.) for the period 1971-2000, and compared the three-day grounding period with three days before and after the grounding period. They found that the average daily temperature range between highs and lows was 1.1 degrees C higher during September 11-14 (see Figure 4) compared to September 8-11 and September 11-14 for other years with normal air traffic.

Average Diurnal (Daily) Temperature Range (DTR)

Average Diurnal (Daily) Temperature Range (DTR)

Figure 4. Average diurnal (daily) temperature range (DTR)9

The data proved that contrails (water vapor) cooled the earth. You cannot just look at earth radiation like the IPCC members have done, it is miniscule compared to the radiation hitting the earth from the sun. The overall effect of our atmosphere is cooling, not warming. You have to look at energy in and out, not just energy out.

Comparison of Earth and Mars Average Temperatures

Both the Earth and Mars rotate around the Sun and rotate on their axes. The earth rotation time for Earth is 23.9 hours and for Mars is 24.6 hours. Therefore, they are similar regarding the way the sun strikes them. However, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is only 0.007 times the earth’s atmosphere. The earth gets hit on average by 1367.5 watts/m2 and Mars by 589.2 watts/m2 of solar irradiance10. The average temperature on earth is 288.3°K and the average temperature on Mars is 208.3°K11. Now then if the Earth had the identical composition and atmospheric pressure as Mars, based on the solar irradiance hitting it, the average temperature on earth would be (1367.6/589.2) x 208.3 = 483.5°K. The earth’s atmosphere therefore provides a cooling effect (483.5-288.3) of 195°K (383°F), compared to the temperature effect of a sparse Mars atmosphere.

Other IPCC Shenanigans

Back in time, the IPCC relayed there was a greenhouse signature in the atmosphere and the temperature 8-12 km above the tropics was warmer than the ground temperature12. Actual temperature measurements refuted this so the IPCC changed their tactics and violated the second law of thermodynamics by saying a cooler atmosphere can warm a warmer earth. They went from one bogus explanation to another.

It was also found the IPCC so-called scientists were fudging data by eliminating the cooler temperature station measurements back in time. Someone released emails from the IPCC group that revealed what they were doing; it was given the name “Climategate”13. Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” was born here when the Medieval Warm period was completely eliminated.

Since Climategate came to light in November 2009, another inappropriate activity by another IPCC member was uncovered 14. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security; and a past respected expert on water-and-climate issues. He had co-authored a paper for the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) task force on scientific ethics and integrity.

Then it was found he had no ethics or integrity.On Feb. 20, 2010, Gleick revealed that he had sent Heartland memos to climate reporters and analysts, and that he had used deception in order to obtain some of them. The Heartland Institute is a think tank that advocates highly skeptical views of climate science. They are fighting, among other things, to not allow the bogus climate science of the IPCC to be taught in schools.


Based on real data evaluation, CO2 causing global warming was completely contrived. The lesson to the world here is, when it comes to science; never blindly accept an explanation from a politician or scientists who have turned political for their own private gain. Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle to eliminate fossil fuels, so that a few, at the expense of the many average people, can reap huge profits from either carbon taxes or alternative fuels. Science is a search for truth – nothing else; when scientific truth is trashed for personal gain, the world is in deep trouble!


  1. Ross, R. J., and Elliott, W.P., “Radiosonde-Based Northern Hemisphere Tropospheric Water Vapor Trends”

Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1602-1612, July 7, 2000.

2. Petit, J.R., et. al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core,

Antarctica”, Nature 399: 429-436, June 3, 1999.

3. Global Warming Petition Project,

4. U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – December 11, 2008.

5. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration data: and .

6. Hydrocarbon Processing “Ozone destruction major cause of warming!”, Robert Ashworth, guest columnist, Part 1- October 10, 2010, Part 2 – November 9, 2010. Complete article can be read @

7. HadAT2 radiosonde developed by the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre, maintained by Peter Thorne

and Holly Titchner. Hosted by Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change.

8. Pearch, R.W. and Bjorkman, O., “Physiological effects”, in Lemon, E.R. (ed.), CO 2 and Plants: The Response

of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric CO2 (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1983), pp 65-105

9. Travis, D., A. Carleton, and R. Lauritsen, 2002: Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature, 418, 601.



12. David Evans, “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming”, November 28, 2007,




Filed under Uncategorized

Have We Been told the Truth About Sea Level? (An Australian Perspective)

Have We Been told the Truth About Sea Level?

Guest post by Gregg Thompson

Flag of Australia

Australian Flag

Living on the Gold Coast and owning a number of properties at sea level, I realized that they could be badly affected if sea level was rising, so I began to research this possibility. Several friends and business associates started asking the same questions, independently of me so we exchanged research information.

We all came to the same conclusion – namely that the real-world science actually showed there was no solid evidence that established any change in sea level despite what some alarmists were claiming based on computer modeling rather than real-world measurements. The real world evidence establishes beyond any doubt that there is no substantial change if there is any at all. Nor is it likely that there will be any change of any consequence that could inundate coastal areas over the next century.

Our research found that some sources projected a relatively minor rise in future decades while others showed no change has occurred in the past and none is expected in the future and others are now showing a drop in sea level is supposedly occurring. Such variations in the measurement of tidal gauges as well wild discrepancies in computer modeling predictions, demonstrates how unreliable measurements of sea level change are. The evidence against a change in sea level is from highly respected scientists worldwide who specialize in measuring actual sea level over long periods as opposed to alarmists who typically use modelled data to produce predetermined outcomes that support their ideology or need to secure further funding by creating doomsday fears. With computer modeling it is GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage Out).

Those wanting to support the fraud of manmade climate change produce dramatic, emotive claims based on computer simulations that are so flawed that in 25 years they have never once got a prediction right! The alarmists have not been able to provide any real-world evidence to back up their claims for impending disaster. In other words, looking backwards in time and comparing actual observed outcomes with the previously modelled predictions, they got it wrong every single time!

Like most people, I believed in manmade climate change for many years but after spending the last 8 years researching every facet of this subject, I was astounded that I was unable to find even one aspect that stands up to unbiased scientific scrutiny. I have written 2 science books and have another soon to be published as well as many articles for science magazines. Many of my colleagues doing climate research also have strong backgrounds in science and they too have come to the same conclusions. None of us have anything to gain one way or another in this debate so we consider ourselves to be unbiased. We are not on anyone’s payroll. Far too many alarmists receive considerable financial gain through research grants while others have unrealistic ideologies that cause them to bias the information they provide to governments and the public. It is they who are grossly biased. My only interest is in discovering the scientific truth.

Details of the evidence contradicting sea level rise scaremongering can be found in the following pages. It is written in non-scientific, plain English for the average person to easily understand the evidence. I have made the paper as brief as possible whilst, hopefully, providing enough evidence to make the case.

Alarmists present predictions for sea level rise as the major threat resulting from their proposed so-called manmade global warming which, over the last 100 years, has been negligible. It is beyond belief that they can seriously try to claim that an infinitesimal change of only 0.001% in CO2 could do this! And no one has ever proven this minute change is caused by humans because natural fluctuations in natural CO2 swamp this.

Given that an inaccurately theorized long term change in sea level is highly implausible because it is built only on highly flawed computer projections, it is important that this myth is debunked. The real-world measurements and science following proves beyond doubt that there is no threat from a change in sea level.

Gregg Thompson

Climate researcher


For decades Global Warmists have predicted 3 disasters which they claim have occurred from “Manmade Global Warming”.
Prediction 1. Average global temperatures have risen over the 20th C and will rise a further 2 to 5 degrees over the 21st C.

The Reality: Global temperature only changed over the 20thC by a fraction of a degree if at all. From the mid 90s temperature flattened and since 2006 global temperature has actually cooled! Due to this Alarmists had to ditch the term “Global Warming” and use “Climate Change” because they know that everyone agree that the climate changes naturally. Few people realize that weather forecasts show that temperature drops every night, on average, by around 10 degrees yet no one thinks this large and abrupt change is unnatural. It has long been known that the Sun provides 99.99% of Earth’s heat and this drives climate and weather. The most basic experiments prove that the trace gas C02 has no affect whatsoever on our climate.

Prediction 2. The planet would dry out. We would not see floods again and our dams would be dry by now.

The Reality: The opposite has occurred! Since 2007 there have been numerous floods worldwide and most dams and aquifers are full, all due to a cooler, wet climate prevailing. In Central Australia Lake Eyre has filled 4 times in 4 years! This wet cooler climate is now expected to dominate for the next 2-3 decades. This occurred in the past when the solar cycle became dormant as it is now. When the solar cycle moves back into an active phase we will again see droughts and warmer temperatures due to less cloud cover.

Prediction 3. – THE MOST SERIOUS! Sea level has risen and it is predicted to rise by many metres over the next 90 years. In the 80s and 90s Al Gore and other alarmists said it would be too late by 2000 to take action because coastal cites all around the globe would have subways and basements flooding and millions would have had to be relocated from places like Bangladesh and island atolls in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

The Reality: Even all these decades later not one city in the world has been affected by any change in sea level. Nor have any island atolls been affected and neither have millions been relocated as Al Gore out rightly lied about. There is no real-world evidence for sea level rise when one looks at the following facts. Predictions are meaningless because input data can be easily manipulated and falsified to get a predetermined outcome – in order to keep the fountain of grant funding flowing.

What is the real-world evidence for any change in sea level?

22 facts that prove there is no change in sea level

While some scientists say that there may be 1-3 mm per year rise in sea level i.e. a mere 100 – 300 mm per century based only on modeled data and not observed analysis of tide gauges, evidence from the real world taken from actual tidal gauge measurements, which is the only evidence worth considering, reveals that there has been none at all that can be verified and that there will not be any in the next 90 years. Here is the evidence to prove this.

1.      TheSEAFRAME study (The Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) funded by the Australian Science & Public Policy Institute  through funding from the Australian government has monitored South Pacific islands over some 30 years found that “when localized anomalies (i.e. cyclones and El Niños) were removed, sea levels were more or less constant”.For details click here

or read Climate debate

2.      THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SEA LEVEL CHANGE which has 4,000 scientists measuring over 4,500 ports worldwide over 80 years hasfound no change in sea level. The past President, Dr Nils Alex Mörner, has called the Alarmists’ claims of sea level rise “the greatest lie ever told”. He found that sea level has remained virtually stable for the last 40-50 years. A very informative interview with Mörner exposes how claims of sea level rise are fabricated.

Read Morner interview

3.      THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT’S MARITIME SAFETY prepares tide predictions for SE Queensland. It says sea level rise is very low, averaging 0.0003 metres (0.3 mm) per annum for the Australian continent (Mitchell, 2002), the 15 to 19 years of readings available from Queensland tidal stations is not sufficient to calculate a reasonable estimate of sea level change”.  Such minute changes are not measurable: they are merely statistical. Suchsmall changes are most likely due to wind across the Pacific in the El Nino years blowing waves higher on the eastern Australian Coast. For an explanation of the extraordinary high level of difficulty in measuring and predicting tides.

Go To Maritime Safety site

4.      In a new paper by Alberto Boretti due to be published in the June 2012 edition of Coastal Engineering-Volume 64, Pages 161-167 titled “Is there any support in the long term tide gauge data to the claims that parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels? ” Boretti reports that “Houston & Dean (2011) considered 57 tide gauge records (in Australia and New Zealand) , each with a record length of 80 years, which include 25 gauges with data from 1930 to 2010 and computed no increase of sea level acceleration”. Indeed they noted a small decrease. It is claimed by some that Sydney Harbour has had 50mm rise over 100 years but this is not replicated elsewhere and it should be if it was real. These long term measurements made at Fort Denison on a small rock outcrop in the Harbour are based on primitive, inaccurate string gauge measurements. Due to the weight of rock used to build the Fort, the rock outcrop has been known to be sinking for a long time thereby giving the false impression that tide heights are rising when they are not.

5.      We have asked the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and the National Tidal Centre (NTC) and CSIRO for evidence in the real-world that proves their claim for doomsday sea level change. They were unable to provide any real world evidence! The government provides these entities with huge levels of funding for research to prove up the government’s climate ideology and the need for a Carbon Tax so these entities have a strong incentive to use fraudulent predictions and highly biased data in order to retain their funding for their CEOs and staff. If you were a scientist in such organizations and your income depended on being deceptive in order to pay off your home mortgage and car and to be able to send your kids to private school, would you also find it necessary to bend and distort nebulous findings and to make sure that inputs to modeling will lean towards producing a pre-determined outcome? But they are not employed to deceive the taxpayer as they are doing. They are employed to tell the truth.

These government funded entities try to convince the gullible that isolated beach sand erosion here and there is evidence. But it is not because sand comes and goes naturally all the time after storm surges. They claimed that the big low pressure system in 2009 along SE Qld and Northern NSW beaches that caused strong onshore winds at the same time as a king tide was evidence of sea level change. This was NOT evidence at all as there was NO change to sea level locally let alone globally. Once the wind died down and the tidal swell receded, the sea level was back to normal levels. And furthermore, over the following couple of years, the sand returned. Such events are natural. They have always occurred and are very localized. They are not global. Pictures of the Gold Coast’s popular Greenmount-Coolangatta beach and Kirra beach taken from Kirra headland since 1900 show that sand is removed after big low pressures systems and cyclones and then it is replaced in the coming years, sometimes to a larger extent.

Look at these pictures

These entities also try to claim that because some selected tidal measurements around the Australian coast show a few millimeters per year apparent rise in sea level that this is evidence of sea level rise. This is deliberately deceptive because they only refer to a select few sites in remote regions that show rise. But it is a rise because the land there is sinking due to natural movement of the Earth’s crust. They deceive the public by not saying that there are just as many sites that show sea level is not changing while others show that it appears to be going down. However, this too is merely caused by the crust rising due to tectonic plate movement; it is not a change in sea level. Sea level change must be global by the same amount everywhere because water finds its own level. If you spill a saucepan full of water on the kitchen floor, it does not pile up in one spot: it spreads evenly across the floor. This is elementary yet CSIRO, BOM and NTC make out they do not understand this and that the public is too ignorant to realize this obvious fact.

The Woolongong City Council Coastal Zone Study “found that there is presently no evidence of long term shoreline recession or loss of beach volume” as claimed by the CSIRO.

BOM and the NTC should be well aware of such fundamentals otherwise this proves that they are far too naïve or ignorant to hold their jobs. Or, it proves that they are so ideologically biased that they cannot perform unbiased credible science in which case they should all be replaced by competent scientists who can. Many believe that government-funded bodies, like BOM, NTC and the CSIRO are prepared to blatantly lie to maintain their lucrative funding from the government. The CSIRO uses estimates even far in excess of even the IPCC (!), the leader of extreme alarmism. There are now increasing calls for jail sentences for those in such positions who deliberately exaggerate and deceive the government and the public in order to profit personally at great expense to taxpayers. The time has come for voters to demand this.

6.      The Netherlands should be the nation most worried because much of this country lies below sea level so any rise would be disastrous, yet they are not concerned. The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute wrote that “there is no need for drastic measures …. The time rate of climate change is slow compared to the lifespan of the defence structures along our coast (that) there is enough time for adaptation.” And that’s assuming there was a rise of 20 cm per century. Similarly, Hong Kong and Singapore would have disastrous problems yet they are not concerned. Venice has been slowly sinking due to the crust sinking since it was built so Venetians should be very concerned if sea levels were rising as fast as the alarmist try to proclaim, but they too are not concerned”.

7.      If sea level rose it would slow the rotation of the Earth and this would be measured by satellites and atomic clocks. If there was a rise in sea level by 20 cm or more over the last few decades as claimed by alarmists, then the rotation of the planet would have slowed by billionths of a second which can be measured. But this has not been seen. Sea level would rise more at the equator slowing Earth’s spin – just as a spinning skaters slow down when they expand by opening out their arms and legs. European satellite surveys show that sea level has been static for the last 9 years. Climate model predictions using satellite measurementsby Rahmstorf (2007, 2010) showed that there has been a downward trend yet predictions are going upward! It is impossible to measure sea level to the accuracies claimed so small trends that either go up or down are to be taken with a grain of salt.

8.      Even during the 10 year drought years when the temperature was a little warmer than usual, there was nowhere near enough fresh water melting from glaciers to cause any measurable rise in sea level. Melting sea ice makes no difference to sea level, as the melted ice actually fills a lesser space that the ice occupied. Alarmists are still trying to claim that there is a rise in sea level at present when snow fall and rainfall has been so heavy across much of the globe since 2006. Water on land in the form of snow, ice or water in dams and underground aquifers obviously depletes the water in the ocean so Alarmists must explain where the extra water for rising sea level could possible come from. They cannot do this.

9.      Even the IPCC which had dramatic claims of many metres of rise this century has had to greatly revise their predictions downward to only 60 mm (which is still a major over exaggeration). The recent Fourth Assessment Report completely nullifies their previous specious claims. It concludes that tidal gauges have established that there is no evidence of acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in the 20th century, and that the global average remains between 1mm – 2 mm per year, as it has for the past 3,000 years! It further reports There is decadal variability in extreme sea levels but no evidence of widespread increases in extremes other than that associated with a change in the mean.”See IPCC reports The Alarmists have been scrambling to undo that conclusion, but they cannot. The evidence speaks for itself.

10.  Tim Flannery, prominent Australian alarmist, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and head of the Climate Change Institute has bought a home at sea level himself near Sydney yet he claims there will be catastrophic sea level rise and is encouraging coastal councils in Australia to forcibly move people from their homes in case of possible sea level rise in 100 years. This says how much he believes in the treat of sea level rise.

See Daily Telegraph story Flannery’s company received $94 million(!) for research into a small geothermal energy plant (technology which is well proven) yet soon after starting to spend money on this alternative energy project, he declared that it was harder than he thought to make it work. We have not been advised that he has given the balance of the money back to taxpayers.

11.  Ancient ports in England and Ireland (as well as those in many other countries) that are hundreds of years old show no measureable change in sea level. British naval records reveal that there is no evidence of a rise in sea level even after the melting of ice after the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19C.

12.  The road to Wyndham in Western Australia was built across the Cambridge Gulf tidal flats in 1971. In order to minimize construction costs, its surface was laid barely a few inches higher than the highest king tides. Yet even today, 40 years later, the road is not underwater even when there’s an exceptionally high king tide. This is because the tides heights have not changed. If sea level had risen, the tides would be higher and the road would flood on each king tide.

13.  The Maldives government is pushing sea level rise as a problem for them so they have a better chance of getting foreign aid donations from other naive countries, and gaining easy access to visas to more prosperous countries for the “climate change refugees”. There have been fraudulent claims that the Maldives is being affected by sea level rise but this is not so. The only reason the Maldives has had sand removed from beaches at various times is because they decided to remove the coral from the reefs surrounding the islands to make cement for construction of all their new multi-billion dollar condos and hotels. This was so they didn’t have to import more expensive cement from India. Mining their reefs has allowed waves from cyclonic storm surges to travel over the denuded outer reefs and across their lagoons to affect their beaches. They are now trying to re-establish these reefs artificially. Because of this the Boxing Day tsunami was also able to affect a number of their islands. 60 Minutes produced the most disgraceful, misleading story on this trying to beat up sea level change while having no regard for the truth. The International Commission on Seal Level Change offered to give the Maldives Council a presentation on why they have nothing to fear but they refused to allow the presentation because it would nullify their moral claim on foreign aid donations if they accepted such advice.

They could not really believe that the ocean is rising because they are spending billions in building many more condos and resorts at sea level.They are also investing their huge profits into coastal land in North Qld beaches and Barrier Reef islands at sea level. If they believed the ocean was rising then they would invest in high ground; not coastal land that would flood.

14.  Tuvalu claims their island atoll is slowly submerging due to sea level rise but strangely this is not happening to surrounding islands! Before white man arrived, they limited their population to 300 as this was all this small island could sustain. But with the aid of modern day ships bringing them food, they now have a population in the thousands. This has caused them to pump up their underground water so that when they have a drought the island can sink into the drying out aquifer. The sinking of the island has nothing to do with any change in sea level.

15.  Japan’s largest and newest international airport, Kanzai is built on a manmade island that is just above sea level. If they believed that there would be any noteworthy change in global sea level they would have built the island higher with more landfill at enormous cost; but they didn’t. This is true for many other airports and major port developments located at sea level around the world.

16.  Dubai’s artificial sand islands, Palm Island and The World, designed for very up-market residential homes at sea level, have not been made any higher to allow for the proposed increase in sea level. Similarly, many other multi-billion dollar developments at sea level in Dubai and numerous other seaside resorts elsewhere around the world have made no allowance for increasing sea levels because they cannot see any evidence that this will occur. Building the land up unnecessarily higher would be cost prohibitive and it would also make most tourist developments far less desirable.

17.  The captains and first mates of ships that have travelled the world for decades say they have not seen any changes in high tide heights at any of the ports which they have docked at regularly all their working lives.

18.  Senior age swimmers and fishermen who regularly use coastal beaches and tidal rivers, attest that they have seen no evidence of sea levels rising over the 60-80 years they have been using those beaches and river estuaries.

19.  Photographs of old jetties and sea walls show barnacles at the same height that they were over 50 years ago so this proves sea level is not changing.

20.  Many Gold Coast properties are less than a couple of metres above sea level yet over 60 years residents who have lived at sea level have not noticed any change whatsoever in tide heights. This is true for many other coastal regions around Australia and around the world. Revetment walls on tidal rivers and canals show the same tide levels over a period of 40 years.

21.  The Federal Government’s Coast and Climate Change Council has distributed maps which predict major inundation of the Australian coastline by rising sea levels. This prediction is based on highly unreliable computer modelling which assumes a totally unrealistic global warming of 2–5 degrees Celsius over the next century and a consequent sea level rise of at least one metre.  Real life global temperature measurements are highly unreliable to better than 1 degree for numerous reasons yet Alarmists claim an impossible one tenth of a degree accuracy. The fraction of a degree warming they claim for the 80s and 90s stopped by the 2000s and then reversed since 2006 so there is no expectation that temperatures will continue to rise. In fact, many meteorologists now expect global temperatures to keep declining for the next 25 years because during the 20thC there was a 25-30 year cooling of a fraction of a degree followed by a similar warming cycle. Temperatures dropped slightly from the late 1800s to the 1920s and again from the 1940s to the 1970s while rising between these cool decades. These cycles were driven by changes in solar activity, referred to above. As no global sea level rise has been recorded over the 20th C, there is no reason to believe any will occur during the 21stC. In fact, NASA claims to have measured a small drop in sea level in the US over recent years.

22.  Climate alarmists talk about the thermal expansion of water causing sea level to rise only if the global temperature was to rise. Even if the air temperature was to rise by a full degree, this would only warm the surface waters of the oceans to 100 m by a hundredth of a degree. As water has a much higher density than air, it requires far more sustained heat energy to heat it to any depth. The air can only heat the surface water which comprises an infinitesimal percentage of the total body of sea water (which is very cold and very deep). Thermal expansion of water from 4 oC to 100 oC (i.e, from almost freezing to boiling) is a mere 4.2 x 10 -2 Thermal expansion of the surface from a full 1 degree rise would only produce a rise of 14 mm yet governments are legislating to force people who own homes by the sea and along tidal rivers and harbors to move off their properties for this meagre and totally unrealistic occurrence. Some local governments in Australia are pushing the fear of rising sea levels in the distant future to stop seaside property owners from being able to do any renovations, even internal remodelling or even a garden shed, on their properties and these laws are making it difficult, expensive or impossible for homeowners to get insurance. All this when there is no evidence for any change in sea level. Even during the 10 year world drought from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s glaciers did not melt at any unnatural rate. Nor did either the North or South ice caps melt any more than they did during warmer decades during the early 20th century. There was no measurable change in sea level from this relatively small amount of fresh water melting. Since 2006 glaciers have grown due to a series of very cold winters and heavy snow falls. So the proposed threat of glaciers and icecaps melting was as complete dramatization. For a list of growing glaciers and ice sheets See growing glaciers

Click here for US Senate report

For more on growing glaciers and thickening Arctic Ice cap Click here


In green are extracts from the IPCC’s last Assessment Report on projected sea level rise with comments following in black.

This statement from the IPCC’s Summary states that ‘Sea level change is highly non- uniform spatially, and in some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.’ There is no overall trend towards sea level rise. Sea level change must be global. It cannot be both up and down or change drastically from one location to another.

The IPCC Report goes on to say ‘There is evidence for an increase…[but these are] related to storm surges, and variations…in regional climate.’  Storm surges are NOT evidence of global sea level rise. A storm surge is a brief temporary rise in the ocean’s surface directly under a low pressure system. The ocean rises because there is a lesser weight of air (pressure) pushing down on the ocean. Such a rise typically lasts only hours.

The Report goes on to say that ‘sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability.’  Decadal variability is relatively minor being only some millimeters over decades. When there are upward changes these are known to be due to El Niňo events where wind blowing westward across the Pacific causes a slight piling up of water and increased wave heights along the Eastern Australian coast. This is NOT global sea level rise as this effect disappears during La Niňa events.
In summing up the Report says‘It is unknown whether these + or – changes are due to decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.’  This is saying they don’t know if there is any overall change in global sea level so how can they pretend otherwise? The Report also says, ‘There are uncertainties in the estimates of the contributions to sea level change.’This makes it even clearer that they have no evidence – despite decades of claiming otherwise. Click here to read the latest IPCC report
Note that the IPCC Assessment Reports for government decision-makers are littered throughout with provisional words (typically in italics) such aslikely,” “more likely,” “very likely,” “possibly,” “expected,”  “inferred,” “may” etc. The authors know they cannot be categorical because they have no scientifically valid proof for any of their claims.


1.      Predicted catastrophic sea level rises are based on the discredited manmade global warming model. There is NO threat from sea level change.

2.      The predictions are refuted by real life observations.

3.      Ultra-Left wing and Dark Green politicians are using unjustifiable scare tactics in a vain attempt to brainwash voters into supporting their naïve ideologies. This is supported by the “climate change industry” – a very large and vocal group of politicians, scientists, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs worldwide who are enjoying the benefits of one of the largest public gravy trains in human history. These Alarmists abhor prosperity and industry yet this has greatly increased the life spans of billions of people and also improved the health and lifestyles of people across the globe. Over the last few decades, technology and industry has greatly reduced pollution across all developed countries and it will continue to do so.




Filed under Uncategorized

Australian Government to Ban Free Scientific Inquiry on the Internet

Australian government endorses Report banning publication of all but government approved science; proof if it were needed that Australian politics and post-normal science is in crisis.

In a shocking story If It Can Happen Down Under by Hal G.P.Colebatch (American Spectator, April 4, 2012) citizens are gearing up for a “head-on assault on Australia’s entire political culture of liberty and democracy.” In effect, the Australian Labor Party and extreme leftist Greens are preparing to make law the 470-page Finkelstein Report to ban from it’s borders those scientists and free-thinkers that are increasingly congregating to the maverick independent global science community, Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI was founded precisely to fulfill a growing need because mainstream journals are increasingly shown to be refusing to publish any counter-establishment science.

'Inconvenient' Scientists will be Gagged

'Inconvenient' Scientists to be Gagged

One such victim of Australia’s attack on science is Professor Alberto Boretti, Assoc. Professor at the University of Ballarat, School of Science & Engineering. Dr. Boretti, a computational expert, has struggled for two years trying to get mainstream journals to publish his damning study proving government scientists have been falsifying sea level rises around the coasts of Australia. He found, “The measured rate of rise of sea levels is not increasing and climate models should be revised to match the experimental evidence.”

Dr. Boretti’s work was painstakingly reviewed by dozens of independent scientists connected with PSI but still the mainstream journals refused to touch it, he claims, for political reasons.

According to Professor Boretti and his PSI colleagues, the Report’s recommendations will make matters far worse. The recommendations are from retired Federal Court Judge Roy Finkelstein and are dubbed as the government’s vendetta against the Murdoch press in an attempt to make the media more “accountable.” Under the anti-Murdoch smokescreen the government is taking for itself the power to impose “professional standards.” Finkelstein wants a News Media Council (NMC) set up to license the press and to censor news reporting and political commentary (including websites).

Colebatch explains that in paragraph 4.10 of the Finkelstein report “it is stated that the council should control speech in Australia because the people are too stupid to be allowed free access to news.”

Worryingly, the NMC attack on free speech is not being faced down by the Australian Opposition so is more likely to become law. Liberal Party’s media spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull has been ambiguous and equivocal about the Report claiming “It has been said that the legal arrangements at present” (that is, ordinary freedom of speech) “do not adequately advance the public interest.”

Science Already Shackled by Corrupt Peer-review System

So how does this impact independent science think tanks and online publishers like Principia Scientific International?

First, the Report doesn’t define what “political commentary” includes and, being that most national governments are invested in science, any new science refuting or in any way critical of government science will be construed as “political commentary.” As Finklestein wants the Australian government to be the arbiter of what constitutes political commentary we can be sure that its Ministry of Truth thought police will likely ban whatever doesn’t conform to its views.

Second, the Report wants websites that get more than 15,000 hits a year (an average of 41 a day) to be subject to NMC’s government censorship putting all content at risk if anything on the website could be described as “news, information and opinion of current value.”

Clearly, science that is new may be considered “news” and the conclusions of scientists can be judged to be “opinion of current value.” As such there will be nowhere for independent scientists and intellectuals to share their ideas if this draconian mind control policy becomes law.

As most scientists who don’t work for government-backed institutions know all too well, it’s nigh on impossible to get any science paper published that promotes any ideas contrary to the orthodoxy. This is most apparent in the way mainstream science journals vet submissions behind closed doors in the post-normal fashion so tellingly exposed during the Climategate scandal. Thousands of leaked emails in November 2009 exposed how a clique of government scientists manipulated major science journals to act as gatekeepers against any science opposed to the government orthodoxy. It is because of the self-evident bias in the “peer-review process” of mainstream science publishing that Principia Scientific International (PSI) was formed and why so much cutting-edge science debate now takes place in the blogosphere.

How Mainstream 'Peer Review' Functions

Censorship in Science Implemented by 'peer review'

So, all honest scientists and supporters of free speech should heed the words of Keith Windschuttle, editor of Quadrant, who has written defiantly:

“If this oppressive scheme is ever implemented, we would feel compelled to defend the long tradition of press freedom by engaging in civil disobedience. While ever I am editor, Quadrant would not recognize the News Media Council’s authority, we would not observe its restrictions, and we would not obey its instructions, whatever the price. We hope other publishers will take a similar stand.”

Read the full and unexpurgated diktats of the Finkelstein Report here.Below is my legal analysis of the wording of the salient parts of the Report. Like with most things drafted by govt. the blandness of the wording hides the sinister intent as may be seen in paras. 2.22;4.9; and 4.10 below:

2.22 A second assumption which has been criticised is that having more information reduces the risk of error. It may be true that where free speech is suppressed lack of information may result in error. But even armed with full information, people do not necessarily have the means for weighing and evaluating that information. And, in any event, more information is only desirable if it is relevant. [my bold: who determines ‘relevance’ in a free society?]
4.9 Media proprietors often defend their adherence to standards by reference to their readers. So, rejecting any suggestion of bias against the government on the part of News Limited, Mr Hartigan said such claims were an insult to readers, who were capable of making up their own minds. [This is the defense for free speech status quo that is then countered in the next para.]
4.10 Often, however, readers are not in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment. They expect news stories they read to be accurate. [my bold] Usually only the authors/publishers, and the subjects of the story, know the extent to which a story lives up to that expectation. Overtime, though, the public develop perceptions about the media that have an important influence on their opinion of the media.”
[O’Sullivan’s legal note: Thus the Australian Government will henceforth determine both what is  ‘relevant’ and what is ‘accurate’ and will hold the power to ban anything breaching their definitions by means of the withdrawal of the publishers’ license it shall require all such publishers to hold]
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE is Legal Counsel for Principia Scientific International


Filed under Uncategorized

Pro-Greenhouse Gas Theory Press Release Goes Up in Smoke

Red-faced supporters of the collapsing science of man-made global warming are being mocked after a press release backfires badly.

The unnamed author of the press release on PROLog disingenuously chose as an authority a reference that, rather than helping his cause, actually contradicts the orthodoxy that so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide dangerously trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere.

The press release specifically seeks to debunk a rising band of maverick skeptics supportive of the ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ book. The book’s authors include Canada’s most famous climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball among a team of independent international scientists, engineers and related experts. The book has been widely trumpeted as the world’s first full-volume debunk of the scientific cornerstone of claims about man-made global warming. The authors claim to have proven there is no such heat trapping effect from any back radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2), which they say, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

However, the PRLog press release (April 6, 2012) entitled ‘Global Warming by Backradiation does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ states:

“backradiation has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 molecule itself, and therefore violation of the Second Law based on heat flow from cold CO2 molecules to the warm Earth may be safely dismissed.”

However, the above statement is quickly debunked as evasive and a deception simply by reference to Kirchhoff’s Three Laws of Spectroscopy. One of the ‘Slayers’, Alan Siddons commented: “Looking at the earth from outer space, we see CO2 falls under Kirchoff’s Third Law and that tells us that a low density, cool gas in front of a hotter, continuous spectrum source creates a dark line or absorption spectrum.”

In other words, adds Siddons, CO2 is a cooler body absorbing radiation from the hotter, brighter earth. “This brings us right back to thermodynamics such that a cooler body cannot transfer heat to a warmer body,” says Siddons. Thus, when people tout how “absorptive” CO2 is, they’re actually admitting that it is cold.

For those unfamiliar with PRLOG, it has a gained a reputation over the past two years as a mostly reliable, mostly free promotional tool for online businesses of all sizes. But the most risible aspect of this pro-greenhouse gas theory ‘press release’ is that it uses as its authority a link to a livejournal blog by a ‘Frank Davis.’ However, as we shall see below, all is not what it seems.

Will the ‘Real’ Frank Davis Stand Up?

To the casual skeptic observer ‘Frank Davis’ appears to be none other than the Frank Davis who is Bren School Professor of landscape ecology and conservation planning and Affiliated Geography Faculty member.

Professor Davis is one of the 21 scientists hand picked to be a ‘Google Science Communication Fellow’ – in other words Frank acts as a mouthpiece for Google’s cynical global warming doomsaying activities.

Anyone could be forgiven for thinking Professor Davis was the man behind the PRLOG statement because he is also a whizz at PR being a “Google Science Communication Fellow.”

But looking closer at the provenance of both the actual ‘Frank Davis’ livejournal link found in the press release and the PRLOG press release we can this the real story is far more bizarre and ironic.

Real Frank Davis? None of the Above

Frank Davis: Greenhouse Gas Theory Expert

Firstly, we find that the press release was actually issued by Thomas Prevenslik who is most likely to be Thomas Prevenslik, author of ‘A Unified Theory of Electrification in Natural Processes’ as published in Technical Papers – ESD Journal.Prevenslik is touted as doing “groundbreaking work” about a “kooky smell theory” according to ‘First Nerve’ blog.

Then the story just gets curiouser and curiouser when we dig deeper to pin down which ‘Frank Davis’ the keen nose of Thomas Prevenslik has sniffed out as his best authority for this press release. We find it isn’t Professor Frank Davis, landscape professor from Bren School at all; our apologies to the professor if there persists any such misunderstanding. Instead, it turns out to be a wholly different ‘Frank Davis’, a campaigning “computer programmer” and an activist “Banging on About the Smoking Ban.”

Satellite Data Also Disproves Greenhouse Gas Effect

What’s more our ‘real’ Frank Davis cited in Prevenslik’s press release doesn’t contradict the Slayers at all. In fact our Frank Davis agrees with the Slayers that CO2 doesn’t warm the earth by trapping thermal radiation. Moreover, not only does good old Frank Davis lend his support to the Slayers we see that even the satellite record backs them because all such empirical evidence shows that the radiant heat the earth releases to space is equal to what it gets from the sun – thus no back radiating heat trapping effect!

So the likes of Prevenslik and other GHE religionists are left contradicting themselves by trying to demonstrate so-called radiative equilibrium and drawing spurious diagrams to ‘prove’ that certain gases can double or triple the radiant energy that the sun provides. Yet none of these believers can point to any evidence that such a miracle occurs in nature, nor point to any device which demonstrates how energy multiplication works.

But don’t just take the word of Frank Davis that the Slayers are onto something. Check it out for yourself and see what the dozens of PhD-qualified scientists that endorse the ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ actually say. Among them is Dr. Pierre R. Latour (noted for his work on NASA’s Apollo Program), astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma (of the Canadian and Indian space agencies), Professor Nasif Nahle and many other experts associated with Principia Scientific International.

They tell us the very physics of greenhouse gas theory is wrong, for nothing can amplify radiation from the sun. What the earth radiates to space is equal to what the sun provides, with no sign of trapping at all. Nor can the alternative mechanism of back-radiation be found in nature. If such existed we’d have devices that multiply radiant energy – we don’t – because radiative forcing theory is phoney and always has been.


Filed under Uncategorized