Monthly Archives: February 2013


Britain’s deeply unpopular Climate Change Act (2008) may be set for repeal as another politician joins the growing number of MP’s aghast at the damage it is having on the nation’s ailing economy.

Conservative Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell’s mea culpa today (February 25, 2013) shows dignity and acceptance of the weight of evidence conflicting with the already scientifically dubious notion of human-caused global warming. “My biggest regret as an MP is that I failed to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act. It was a mistake. I am sorry,” said Carswell on his blog.

Douglas Carswell1
The announcement comes hot on the heels of last week’s surprise admission by Rajendra Pachuari, the UN’s head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Pachauri conceded that we are now into a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, as confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office. Even NASA’s most strident climate doomsayer, Dr. James Hansen concedes there has been “a pause” in any temperature rise.

The 2008 rush to enact the UK’s “carbon tax” is now dismissed by Carswell as “gesture legislation” and like other politicians he admits “this law has turned out to have real consequences.” Like others Carswell has woken up to the stark reality of just how much the UK’s Climate Change Act has pushed up energy prices and is “squeezing households and making economic recovery ever more elusive,” says the MP. Under the Act the government is currently legally committed to cutting CO2 emissions by 35 per cent by 2022 and 50 per cent by 2025. In contrast, the EU is only committed to cutting emissions 20 per cent by 2020.Skyrocketing energy bills have forced 6 million households in fuel poverty and the proposed Carbon Floor Price will increase this number to 12 million – that is 1 in 4 households

The rise in dissent in the corridors of power is matched by a new willingness among impartial observers to review the very cornerstone of climate alarmism, the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory’ which researchers at Principia Scientific International say is also refuted. One of PSI’s leading climatologists, Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Olso recently published a telling study in the respected Global and Planetery Journal that used only approved government-sourced data to prove that temperatures rose before levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Professor Humlum and his team concluded: “Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

Professor Humlum and his 200+ PSI colleagues are now in the vanguard of exposing the flaws in “greenhouse gas” science, once discarded already by mainstream scientists over 50 years ago. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) had, at that time, thrown cold water on the notion that carbon dioxide could do anything to alter our climate. In one of it’s main publications the AMS concluded that idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” [1]

It was political will rather than scientific endeavor that ressurected the discredited ‘theory’ decades later. In the 1980’s the British Government seized on CO2 as a useful political tool to raise tax revenues and invested heavily in the now discredited Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA). It was a keynote speech delivered to the Royal Society by Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1988 that set our modern malaise in motion. Thatcher’s ‘science adviser’ at the time, Christopher Monckton had been most impressed by the CO2-hating science of NASA’s James Hansen that had swayed an impressionable U.S. Congress three months earlier.

Ironically, Carswell is a graduate of the UEA, made infamous by the Climategate scandal of 2009. He is also regarded widely as among the more principled politicians in Westminster hoping to turn the tide on this folly. Carswell was voted in 2009 by ‘Spectator’ readers as ‘Parliamentarian of the Year’ while ‘The Daily Telegraph’ nominated him a ‘Briton of the Year.’ He now takes his place among that fast growing band of dissenting Conservative politicians speaking out about the damage misguided ‘green’ policies have had on our economies.

Meanwhile, down in Australia the UN’s Dr Pachauri has been in Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University. He admitted it was time for open discussion about controversial science and welcomed such “politically incorrect views” and that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

“People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr Pachauri said. The UN’s top climate expert said there was “no doubt about it” that it was good for controversial issues to be “thrashed out in the public arena.”

Professor Humlum and his PSI colleagues are now urging other politicians to join Carswell and engage in direct dialogue with eminently qualified dissenting PSI scientists such as Dr. Tim Ball, John Sanderson (immediate past president of the Royal College of Science Association), Professor Humlum and others who have no stake in foisting junk science on hard pressed taxpayers.

[1] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”


Filed under Uncategorized

Outmoded Science Journals Fail Again on Peer Review

Times are moving fast and Science and Nature magazine can’t cope. Caught resting on their laurels these eminent mainstream publications have again been exposed as inept or biased when it comes to peer-reviewing the papers submitted to them.

PSI overtakes Science and Nature
The latest blow concerns the questionable peer review policies of these “top” journals. These denizens of academic publishing are being pulverized in the blogosphere for their inflexibility and conservatism more in keeping with the bygone era of traditional paper and print publishing. Signaling the revolution this week are astute analysts from various quarters. Leading Aussie science blogger, Jo Nova, reflects the mood in the climate science community lamenting:

“The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.”

Apparently, unwilling or unable to keep pace with the rise of “peer-to-peer” (P2P) Science and Nature typify a fossilized mentality when compared with the innovations now occurring elsewhere in online multi-media publishing. Just as Youtube, file sharing and high-tech cheap multimedia helped trigger a transformation in the music and film market industry, grassroots scientists are now getting in on the act. Exploiting social media in the same way scientists are bypassing the perceived gatekeeping mentality of many of the established top journals and forming new online communities capable of creating their own electronic journals offering real time, open peer review applying rigorous standards that would put many mainstream journals to shame

In climate science so it is in medical research. The New York Times has published an astonishing article that once again indicated peer-to-peer (P2P) is becoming an irresistible force for change.

In ‘Mice Fall Short as Test Subjects for Humans’ Deadly Ills,’ Gina Kolata exposes how a “game changer” 10-year study by Dr. H. Shaw Warren, a sepsis researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital, was scorned by the leading science journals. Warren and his colleagues had identified why every one of nearly 150 drugs tested on mice at a huge expense failed on human patients. For a year the researchers tried to get their study published in Science and Nature, hoping to reach a wide audience, but both rejected it. Science resorted to the glib excuse that the journal “accepts only about 7 percent of the nearly 13,000 papers submitted each year.” But why restrict the number of papers published in an era of electronic online publishing where the actual quantity of words published is no longer a cost factor?

The problem probably resides somewhere between gatekeeping and overload in this fast-moving information age. Frankly, Science and Nature run their publications as if the world still lived contentedly in a bygone era of deference to authority where most decisions by academics were taken ponderously and behind closed doors. But times have moved on. These “middlemen” of science have become as redundant as so many record labels in the music industry. Innovators in the sciences – just as in the arts – are beginning to demand immediate universal and low cost access to their work.

Of course, the Internet is more than capable of feeding gigabytes of information to the lustiest of appetites. Just as it is does for entertainment so does the immediacy of the World Wide Web offers probably the best vehicle to earnest raw truth in the sciences. In fact, the writing has been on the wall for the obstructionists for a decade as demonstrated in 2004 in a controversy concerning the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Unethical conduct by journal editors saw apparent collusion between authors and funding companies (and governments) to skew the facts.

As Mike Adams, Editor of noted: “Too many of these journals are masquerading as stewards of good science — they pretend to show articles that are well-researched, that are authored by people who have no financial interest in their publication, and that have been put through a rigorous quality control process known as peer review.”

Adams goes on to expose the problem, “Often, the so-called scientific truth presented by these journals is really just a relative truth that has been invented by a circle of influential doctors, researchers and journal editors who define scientific truth by choosing what to publish (and what to ignore). So, it is a rather obvious case of circular reasoning on their side. In other words, to put it more plainly, it’s true if they say it is, and if they reject a paper, then it’s not true. Scientific fact is whatever they tell you it should be.”

An element of fraud may well be tainting the entire system and stubborn resistance to change merely adds fuel to the fire. This may explain the rapid rise of ‘Retraction Watch,’ an up and coming blog dedicated to highlighting those papers that are being retracted on a weekly basis for scientific misconduct, incompetence or unexplained “error.”

With corruption and poor ethics notoriously blighting so many professions today there is clearly scope for this fast developing new market. Right before our eyes we are witnessing the discredited, old style journals being superseded by cheaper, more accessible new Internet based journals backed (and often staffed) by those scientists disenfranchised from a failing and increasingly irrelevant mainstream.

Principia Scientific International (PSI) is one such fledgling science association-cum-journal that has seen rapid growth in recent months. Taking on board innovations in open peer review, as detailed in showpiece article ‘Upstarts Lead Peer-to-Peer Science Online: where next?’, PSI has invested in providing members with a bespoke inhouse open peer review and online publishing operation where the new buzzword is P2P.

In its short life PSI has already acquired 200+ full members, a quarter of whom possess doctorate-level qualifications and a database of more than 1,200 subscribers to its weekly newsletters. A bullish site editorial indicates why:

“Old-style peer review just isn’t up to the job and a new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the degree of misconduct is even worse than previously thought. So PSI has been handed the baton to move online science evaluation further towards full transparency. Grasping P2P with both hands, hundreds of scientists from around the world from diverse specialisms and cultures are coming together to discuss ways towards better testing and evaluation of new scientific and technological ideas. Moreover, P2P is also being shown to enable PSI to uncover misuse of science (and scientists) by governments and corporations. PSI embraces its role as a sentinel for truth and transparency and is proving to be an intellectual safe haven for whistleblowers.”

So, if Science and Nature are to take on their new rivals they may want to start learning that P2P is here to stay and should adapt accordingly.


Filed under Uncategorized

Exposed: David Suzuki Uses Cult of Celebrity to Procure Young Girls

Emails obtained under freedom of information laws reveal Canada’s most prominent environmentalist, David Suzuki, has more than just a glad eye for schoolgirl Lolitas.

Donna Laframboise on David Suzuki

Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise may have opened up a can of worms after appearing on Sun News Network (February 7, 2013) to denounce the mainstream media’s “cone of silence over these revelations about David Suzuki.” New email evidence exposes 76-year-old Suzuki’s sick demands upon the nation’s teachers requiring they ply him with an endless gaggle of impressionable young women to serve him whenever he is guest of honor visiting Canadian schools.

Laframboise describes the story as “an amazing paper trail of emails” (including one dated October 18, 2012) that expose how college teacher Mary Milburn and her Department Head, Jim Anderson, among others, ingratiate themselves with Suzuki’s PA by submitting to Suzuki’s sick requests. Specific demands were that the school surround him only with nubile “young ladies” and “dressed to impress,” “not dressed like butch security guys but dressed ‘nicely.’”

“That is not a request the college should have considered seriously” fumed Laframboise. She characterized this affront as a clear “Feminism 101 issue.” Laframboise lambasted schools across the country that indulge Suzuki in his apparently lascivious taste to have young girls to order, dressed to his taste and at his beck and call.

“It is not appropriate for any man visiting a school to ask for female bodyguards,“ says Laframboise. The investigative journalist emphasized her point in the eight minute news interview by declaring that if the prime minister or any regular guy pulled such a stunt feminists would be up in arms screaming “what rock did you crawl out from under!”

She laments, however, when it comes to a left wing icon  idolized by the north American mainstream media the press  appears to have surrendered it’s conscience to all things “green” and double standards come into play.

Across the pond in Britain this story eerily echoes the recent tragic case of the depraved Jimmy Savile, another media celebrity who duped the press into believing he was also holier-than-thou and thus above suspicion. It turned out that while Savile was being lauded – a media celebrity knighted for his services to charitable causes – he was secretly an opportunistic pedophile raping and abusing children under the noses of their teachers and carers.

The David Suzuki emails provide no hard evidence that Suzuki has molested anyone and certainly no girls have made any allegations against him. But at the very least, impressionable young girls should not be objectified and demeaned to become nothing more than eye candy prancing about in Suzuki’s shameless cattle call.

Thus Laframboise is entirely correct to question where these teachers’ (and media) heads are at if they are failing to apply due diligence to protect children from what may be the grubby paws of yet another deluded egomaniacal celebrity who believes he can do no wrong.


Filed under Uncategorized


World-renowned sea level expert, Nils-Axel Mörner has come out to trash latest alarmist media claims that Bangladesh is facing serious flood risks due to man-made global warming. In particular, Dr. Mörner has denounced environmentalist, Bill McKibben who speaks of “30 million refugees” and Canada’s Sunday edition of the for publishing a misleading article, ‘Bangladesh faces mass migration, loss of land from climate change.’

mangrove bangladesh

The story claims villages in much of rural southwest Bangladesh are suffering the ravages of climate change. The author of the piece, Raveena Aulakh, relies heavily on the junk science of Atiq Rahman, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Rahman blames Bangladesh’s woes on human emissions of carbon dioxide and insists raising taxes will stem the rising tides. “All this could happen faster because of lack of reduction of greenhouse gases,” says Rahman. “And even if we stopped now, it would take a lot of time for things to get better.”
But Dr. Mörner, famed for his scientific rebuttals of such claims is having none of it. He has issued a press statement (February 10, 2013) to denounce as bogus the article’s shabby “climate change” link to Cyclone Aila that wrought devastation on the subcontinent in 2009.
Mörner retorted that Cyclone Aila “had nothing to do with any sea level rise. It was just the destruction of one of those events hitting this coast so badly. Unfortunately, this is normal for this part of the world, and has always been so.” The real concern, says the sea level expert, should be the incessant chopping down of mangrove trees to clear space for shrimp farms which fuels soil erosion and increases the risk of flooding. As Mörner pointed out during the ‘Sealevelgate’ scandal in 2001, politicized and cherry picked science “leads to confusion over cases such as Bangladesh, whose plight is the exact opposite of the one claimed by environmental lobbyists and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

Nonetheless, writer, Raveena Aulakh sticks rigidly to the IPCC’s doomsaying narrative and cynically promotes the usual tired old claims about melting ice sheets, diminishing glaciers and man-made global warming.
If only Aulakh and other sensationalist publications would introduce a little more of the Mörner balance in their articles for he has already exposed the fraud and misunderstand about the subcontinent in a key article from 2011 in the Spectator. ‘Rising credulity,’ describes how Mörner visited and studied the Sundarban delta area in Bangladesh (pictured) and was able to observe clear evidence of coastal erosion, not sea level rises.

The truth about sea levels are that they have always been fluctuating and always will no matter what governments think they might do to control them. Indeed, there are well-documented and huge variations in sea levels, by as much as two meters, because, as is the way with Nature, they stubbornly refuse to maintain a constant level. Dr. Mörner describes the world’s oceans and seas as more akin to an “agitated bath where the water is slopping back and forth. This is a dynamic process.”
By contrast, independent scientists know full well that Bangladesh is cursed because of rain over the Himalayas, which is unconnected with the sea. “It is also cursed because of the cyclones which push water inland. Again, this has nothing to do with the sea, adds Mörner.

Sensationalist authors such as Atiq Rahman should, says Mörner, first check their facts with the world’s true experts on sea level. They can be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which Mörner is a former president), not with the discredited IPCC.

This and other great science stories can be found at Principia Scientific International.


Filed under Uncategorized

The Tragic Tautology of the Greenhouse Gas Effect

Carl Brehmer reminds us of a crucial internal conflict within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis. So vague and self-contradictory are the myriad explanations given by climatologists of this “theory” that anyone who critically examines it soon understands that it is best explained as a tautology.

In rhetoric ‘tautology’ is defined as using different words to say the same thing, or a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct. We never have and never will get a detailed scientific explanation of the “greenhouse gas” effect (GHE) because for climatologists to seek one would require them to dissect it, thus exposing the truth;  it hangs on nothing of any substance.

We are never given the “how” for the GHE and yet science is all about how things work. When Principia Scientific International (PSI), comprised of 200 experts in science and engineering, sought clarification from the supporters of the GHE they were either ridiculed or ignored. So with no answers as to the “how” inquiring minds turned to the “why” for the rise of this climate chimera.

In a series of articles we saw that the idea of a GHE driven by carbon dioxide was re-invented in the late 1970’s after being widely accepted in science as refuted before 1950.

The re-invented “theory” gained acceptance during the 1980’s as the field of government-funded climatology grew. Despite inward investment in climate research no rigor was applied to give any standard definition of what the “greenhouse effect” is.

“Analogously but Different”

Incredibly, despite a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded “carbon reduction” industry avidly pursuing control of this alleged climate thermostat there are no agreed equations and no agreed descriptors of its how this “thermostat” actually works. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) adds to the confusion by glibly declaring our atmosphere is analogous to a greenhouse “but different.”

These handwaving proponents of the hypothesis will always start out by admitting the only meaningful source of heat to the surface of the earth is the sun. But then they will often declare that certain gases then serve to drive “down-welling radiation” (or “back radiation”) from the atmosphere as a secondary heat source.

Please take no one’s word on this. Just do your own Google search; most definitions of the “greenhouse effect” either overtly assert or at least imply that downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere adds additional heat to the ground/ocean.

But nowhere will you be told where the extra heat generated by the atmosphere goes, because all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight.  So, within the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis all that “additional” thermal energy that the atmosphere generates disappears as mysteriously as it appeared in the first place (see diagram).


Astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma speaks for most critics of this shape-shifting GHE. Postma points out that the duty of modern empirical science is to seek to identify the physical principles that underlay observed phenomena. He writes:

“By identifying and understanding the underlying principle, we thus understand reality. If we can mathematize the principle and justify it on a-priori mathematical absolutivity, then the phenomenon becomes a scientific Law, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics or Kepler’s Law of Universal Gravitation, or the Laws of Least Action or Least Time. We can also engineer the physical principle and use it to our benefit, to produce products, services, and generally, to create wealth and increase the standard of living of people, etc.

The obvious question: is the underlying principle of the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually defined, anywhere? All I have to tell you, is that “No, it is not.””

A healthy skepticism demands of us that we look again at the above diagram, sold to us as the basic model of the greenhouse gas effect. Imagine what difference the addition or removal of that cyclical flow of phantom internal energy would make on the system as a whole. It makes no difference scientifically at all and we could easily discard it if we wished by applying the accepted principle of ‘Occam’s Razor’ (“plurality should not be posited without necessity”).  But to a charlatan looking to pick your pockets for more tax dollars, it is very necessary being the cleverest and most powerful tautology ever sold.


Filed under Uncategorized


U.S. Federal Court hits President Barack Hussein Obama with three charges of abuse of office. The charges presented are detailed and damning. The indictments assert that President Obama “acted as a dictator” to exceed his powers of office to appoint officials behind the back of Congress during a recess period.

Richard Cordray and Barack Obama

In a staggering announcement an Associated Press report declared: “President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.”

Mr. Lyndon Larouche, a well-connected journalist and political activist characterized the court’s assessment as “probably the greatest indictment ever seen on a standing president throughout history.” White House press secretary Jay Carney reacted strongly against the charges declaring, “we believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound.”  However, the federal court seems to disagree having put in place ” a list of charges presented as conclusions” according to Larouche. The court appears to take the view that no such recess was in place. As such, the president was in violation of Section 5 of Article 1 of the Constitution that stipulates that a president cannot make appointments without the consent of the Senate.

The failed Obama gambit had hoped to apply the section of the Constitution that reads: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

The Washington Post reports on the seriousness of this abuse of office, “is more than an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role. It is a breathtaking violation of the separation of powers and the duty of comity that the executive owes to Congress.”

Crucially, no other president in history has ever tried to force through such alleged “ recess appointments” while Congress is still in session. The offenses occurred last year when President Obama opted to bypass Congress and unilaterally appoint three people to seats on the National Labor Relations Board . He also made Richard Cordray (pictured with Obama) head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (after the Senate blocked action on his nomination). Cordray’s appointment, made on the same date, has been challenged in a separate court case.

Lyndon Larouche has characterized the events as probably the worst violation by any sitting president trying to use a “procedural loophole.”  Jubilant Republicans are already looking to set in motion impeachment proceedings. Larouche, who studied the court indictments, believes Obama’s offenses are “far graver” than those that led to the impeachment and removal from office of disgraced Republican president, Richard Nixon, after the Watergate scandal.


Filed under Uncategorized