Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Court says official Warmists are good guys so their figures must be right

A very New Zealand judgment. The Kiwi establishment stick together -- to the point of presenting an "orchestrated litany of lies" if need be. And David Bain could tell you a thing or two. He had to go to the Privy Council in London to get his case properly looked at. New Zealand abolished appeals to the Privy Council after that, funnily enough!

One assumes scientific analysis is objective, so it may come as a surprise that this was challenged in a New Zealand High Court case, the results of which were released last week.

The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET) contested the claim by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) that New Zealand air temperatures had climbed by 0.9C over the past century. The trust maintains that objective analysis of the data shows a trend closer to 0.3C per 100 years.

Recent temperature trends were not in dispute. The court case centred on the fact that the temperature record before about 1965 had been adjusted downwards, a fact not denied by either party. The dispute was over the size of the downward adjustment.

There is little doubt the average annual temperature in New Zealand has been generally trending upwards in line with the expectations of many climate scientists. The question is whether all or part of the warming can be linked to artificial influences.

Long air temperature time series are more often than not beset with artificial, usually human-caused, discontinuities that contaminate what would otherwise be a near-natural record; for example, those sudden discontinuities caused by the relocation of weather stations, changes in instrumentation and observing practices, or gradual changes around the weather station that affect thermal conditions such as the growth or removal of vegetation and, in particular, urban growth and development leading to what is known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

Whether sudden or gradual, these changes can introduce inhomogeneities into the long-term temperature time series that distort or even hide the true climatic signal. Uneven spatial sampling because of irregular geographical distribution of weather stations also contaminates the temperature record.

The best-documented example of data contamination is the UHI effect in which data from urban stations are influenced by localised warming because of asphalt and concrete replacing grass and trees. There is a proven close correlation of city population size with urban heating influence on air temperature, which can account for an urban area being as much as 12C warmer than its rural surroundings. Many studies by climatologists have demonstrated that very small changes in population are enough to induce a statistically significant local warming.

The science of climate change depends entirely on reliable data, quality controlled and homogenised rigorously. Adjusting the data to achieve the reliability required is difficult and controversial. There are other problems.

Temperature trends detected are small, usually just a few tenths of one degree Celsius over 100 years, a rate that is exceeded by the data's standard error. Statistically this means the trend is indistinguishable from zero. Moreover, trends and temperature differences justified to one or two decimal places and significant figures are unreliable since the amounts are greater than the accuracy of the data allows, and multiple averaging of measurements does not make it more reliable.

Climate services of various countries provide clients with statistical information on climatic variables that is based on long-term observations at a collection of different weather stations. The importance of this statistical material stems from their widespread use as a major input for a large number of societal design and planning purposes, including setting greenhouse gas emissions policy and the economic consequences that follow. For these reasons it is important that climate services deliver the best estimates possible.

The NZCSET's lawyer summed it up when he told the court the trust was not asserting climate warming did not exist, "we're saying let's at least make sure that evidence of this for New Zealanders is accurate".

Despite the research work undertaken so far, there have been few attempts globally to reassess quantitatively the nature and reliability of homogeneity adjustments to complete national data sets. The High Court case highlights the situation in New Zealand where there have been no peer-reviewed science-based efforts to do this. A court ruling is no substitute.

Argument from authority has no place in science. This was the basis of NZCSET's case. Argument on the scientific facts and methods used in analyses must now take place. The question is: will it?


Greenpeace's Crime Against Humanity

Patrick Moore, PhD

"If you plan to destroy test fields to prevent responsible testing and development of Golden Rice for humanitarian purposes, you will be accused of contributing to a crime against humanity. Your actions will be carefully registered and you will, hopefully, have the opportunity to defend your illegal and immoral actions in front of an international court." -- Dr. Ingo Potrykus to Greenpeace, February 2001

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines "crimes against humanity" as acts that are "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack - intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

According to the World Health Organization between 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency, half of whom die within a year of becoming blind. Millions of other people suffer from various debilitating conditions due to the lack of this essential nutrient.

Golden Rice is a genetically modified form of rice that, unlike conventional rice, contains beta-Carotene in the rice kernel. Beta-Carotene is converted to vitamin A in humans and is important for eyesight, the immune system, and general good health. Swiss scientist and humanitarian Dr. Ingo Potrykus and his colleagues developed Golden Rice in 1998. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies that golden rice can eliminate vitamin A deficiency.

Greenpeace and its allies have successfully blocked the introduction of golden rice for over a decade, claiming it may have "environmental and health risks" without ever elaborating on what those risks might be. After years of effort the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project, led by Dr. Potrykus, The Rockefeller Foundation and others were unable to break through the political opposition to golden rice that was generated directly by Greenpeace and its followers.

Recently the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has taken a lead role, in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, in breaking through these barriers and bringing Golden Rice to market. Field trials are now underway in the Philippines and Bangladesh with the hope of introducing it to the market by 2015. Since the invention of Golden Rice in 1998 between four million and 8 million additional children have become blind, nearly half of whom have already died. Surely this constitutes "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." Greenpeace continues to oppose these field trials.

Greenpeace has openly and aggressively spread misinformation about Golden Rice since it was first invented and has continued to do so at every opportunity. They claim that there are better ways to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, such as vitamin pills and "home gardening". Yet Greenpeace is doing nothing to implement alternative programs for the millions of victims, claiming the cause of vitamin A deficiency is "poverty". One might ask if purposefully condemning millions of children to blindness and early death perpetuates poverty rather than alleviating it. Academies of Science around the world endorse the use of biotechnology, including genetic modification, to improve the nutrition and productivity of our food crops. There is zero evidence of any possible harm from these improvements.

It is clear by the facts that Greenpeace is guilty of crimes against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court. They claim that "Golden Rice is a failure" while they are the ones responsible for preventing the cure that is so desperately needed by millions of civilians. The fact that Greenpeace perpetuate lies about Golden Rice while at the same time doing nothing to solve the problem themselves constitutes gross negligence on top of the crime against humanity. Will someone please bring them to justice?

Received via email

Alleged Top Ten Reasons for Republicans to Accept Warmism

Paul Douglas (real name Doug Kruhoffer) offers Ten Reasons to Accept Warmism below. His reasons are an ethnocentric and intellectual disgrace. He mostly seems to equate America with the globe. If he looked at the globe, most of his scares would fall apart. Parts of America might be in drought but Britain has just had the wettest summer for 100 years. I make a few obvious rejoinders below but if you want referenced facts on the matters at issue Joe Bastardi has them all

10). Shifting Weather Patterns - The jet stream is shifting north over time. I'm seeing things on the weather maps every other day that can't be explained away as "normal extremes".

Weather is always changing

9). Rising Sea Levels - whatever your skeptical uncle Joe says, seas are warming, and as they warm, they expand and sea level goes up. Most scientists predict 3-4 feet in the next 80 years or so. Think twice about buying that retirement condo right on the beach. Find something 4 blocks inland, and be patient.

There has long been a slight trend upwards but recent figures seem to show a stasis

8). Warmer, More Acidic Oceans - if you scuba dive, you've probably noticed that corals reefs aren't what they used to be. That's ocean acidification from absorbing carbon dioxide. It's radically changing the ocean ecosystems and fisheries right now.

If the ocean IS becoming more acidic, that proves global cooling -- as a warmer ocean would outgas CO2 and thus reduce the incidence of carbonic acid

7). Straining Water Resources - water for drinking, "fracking", farming, ethanol production, soda pop, or energy generation - whatever your flavor, it's getting scarcer. That affects all of the above.

Then why are many parts of the world having problems with floods?

6). Dying Forests - not just by massive, historic wildfires, but by pests like the pine beetle that no longer gets killed off in the warmer winters, turning entire rocky mountains brown with dead pine trees.

Recent research suggests that pine beetle increase seems mainly due to Greenie restrictions

5). Extreme Rains and More Severe Local Storms. 4-5% increase in atmospheric moisture - warmer air holds more moisture. That means it gets drier on the ground because more is absorbed by the atmosphere. But it also means when it rains, it rains harder as that higher water content rains out. But dry soil and heavy rains equal floods, and that means more damage and more water lost to runoff.

But big storms have been LESS frequent in recent years

4). Spike in Wildfires - less water plus pine beetles and other crawly critters that kill trees plus drier soil means more wildfires.

Wildfires are worse because of Greenie efforts to block preventive burnoffs

3). More Drought -- more water in the atmosphere means less on earth and thus more drought.

Funny that all the dams are full in Australia. But Australia is not on his globe, obviously. Australia is however about the same size as the contiguous United States so weighs just as heavily in global climate effects

2). Superheated summers -- the above combine to create hot, hot, hot summers. Drier air is hotter without water to moderate it. Hotter air absorbs even more, even quicker. And hotter air means more air conditioners, means more carbon going back into the atmosphere.

And what about recent very cold winters? Yes. I know. Warming causes cold

And the number one reason:

Arctic Sea Ice Monitor. The latest value: 3,593,750 square kilometers on September 9, 2012. A new record minimum of Arctic sea ice extent was set on August 24, 2012. The four lowest values of Arctic sea ice have been observed since 2007. Source: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Earth Observation Research Center.

1). Record Arctic Ice Loss. As I said, less ice reflecting means more water absorbing. We used to say the Arctic might be ice free by the middle of the century. Now scientists are saying it may happen as early as 2015. That's in three years, people. The ice is melting this year at an unprecedented rate, and if we have another warm winter, it won't be replenished. This could tip the scales for a lot of larger climate changes to come. A comprehensive article in the Wall Street Journal on September 7 summarized "...the six lowest Arctic sea ice levels on record all occurred in the past six years."

The Earth has TWO poles and the Antarctic ice is as large or larger than ever! So there is no GLOBAL effect involved. And 91% of the earth's glacial ice is in the Antarctic, so it is the Antarctic that matters. Arctic ice is mostly sea ice so melting that would have NO effect on sea levels


Burt Rutan was not fooled

An interview:

Burt Rutan designed Voyager, the first aircraft to fly around the globe without stopping or refueling. He also designed SpaceShipOne, financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, which won the $10 million Ansari X-Prize in 2004 for becoming the first privately funded manned craft to enter the realm of space twice within a two-week period. Both, along with three other of his aircraft, are on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. The following are excerpts from a recent interview:

Q. Burt, as someone with such intense involvement in aerospace design and development, what got you interested in climate issues?

A. ... The first thing that got my attention, a lot of people's attention, was statements that the entire planet is heading towards a future climate catastrophe that is attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions. So I decided to take a look at that and just see if this conclusion was arrived at ethically. It's obviously an extremely important issue which has gotten a huge amount of media attention. I was particularly concerned because the proposed solutions will have enormous impacts upon costs of energy, which of course, will increase costs of everything.

... [W]hen I decided to look closely at the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming crisis claims, I avoided focusing on media reports, and instead, went directly to available raw climate data. The intent was to see if that data might just as reasonably be interpreted differently.

Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn't obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn't share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked.

I even read Al Gore's book, which was very enlightening . but not in a good way. When you look for data to back up his claims, you immediately discover that they are totally unsubstantiated. This was frankly astonishing because analyzing data is something I'm very good at. All my professional life I have been analyzing complex flight test data, interpreting it and presenting it.

Something that I always did in flight test is to make a chart that shows every bit of the data, and only then, decide later on the basis of real observed results which parts of the data were valid.

Tragically, policymakers have thrown horrendous amounts of taxpayer money needed for other purposes at solving an unsubstantiated emergency.

It is scandalous that so many climate scientists who fully knew that Al Gore had no basis for his irresponsible claims stood mute. Meanwhile, that alarmism has generated billions of dollars more to finance a rapidly growing climate science industry with budgets that have risen by a factor of 40 since the early 1990s. I consider this failure to speak up just as unethical as the behavior of those who put out the false catastrophic claims.

Q. Burt, what was most astonishing to you in the disconnect between what you were seeing in the raw data you were able to obtain and what you're seeing in various report conclusions and in the media?

A. Well, one of the first things I did was to get out the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC summary for policymaker's reports. Inexplicably, the Medieval Warm Period appearing in the first report which was warmer than today's temperatures, disappeared from the second. The last Little Ice Age disappeared as well. They were replaced by the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which appeared multiple times. That was a big disconnect.

Actually, looking back over the past 11,000 or so years since Earth began to recover from the last big Ice Age, we're experiencing a very moderate and stable climate stage. And going back nearly half of the past million years, a long Ice Age occurred about every 90,000 years or so with a large percentage of the planet uninhabitable. We're talking about ice as much as a mile or more thick covering large portions of North America and Europe. Any local warming that alarmists talk about is only a brief and tiny blip.

There's certainly nothing alarming about the stable period we currently enjoy. I was struck by claims that we are experiencing unprecedented warming caused by Man, where data clearly shows that our recent warming isn't unprecedented. I think that's the main thing that drove me into an obsession to look at this climate subject very closely during my early investigations. I don't do so much nowadays, and hardly did anything last year, but in those early years I spent an enormous amount of time researching data and comparing it with what I was seeing in the IPCC summary reports as products from the alarmists.

Another important thing that caught my attention was that the increased atmospheric CO2 that all this alarmism centers on is of huge benefit for agriculture. Greenhouses actually supplement CO2 to make plants grow better. It has been shown that crop yields actually go up some 30% or more with doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. So I'm a very confused as to what's wrong with CO2. It's the food plants need to grow and feed all animals, including us....

A. What happened when you began to speak publicly about this and let your conclusions be known?

A. Good question Larry. I first decided to present the results of my study and my data at the Oshkosh Air Show, an event that I have been continuously going to ever since 1971. Of course I have had an enormous following there, and I had always previously spoken on the subject of aircraft development. But on this occasion I thought that the global warming subject was too important not to mention because it was indeed fraudulent. Its effect on America's competitiveness and economy would be enormous compared to anything else that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

The interesting thing is that I decided to preview this talk for a totally unusual audience, in fact one that would be considered to be opposite of any I normally address. This was on the occasion of receiving a lifetime design achievement award at the Pasadena Art College in July 2009. That was to be a very liberal crowd, mostly college students.

The event was about design as it related to what they design in an art college. things like automobiles and motorcycles primarily involving styling rather than dealing with engineering. They had some phenomenal talents for showing beautiful shapes applied to transportation. My designs, which many consider beautiful, are determined by complex flight dynamics and laws of physics.

The transportation design theme attracted Jay Leno to bring one of his very rare cars to the event, a steam-powered vehicle that was absolutely beautiful. Jay sat right in the front row for my presentation. I had previously been on his show twice, appearances related to our SpaceShipOne program.

The audience had obviously expected me to present my designs and my philosophy . discuss how I approached creative design. So I did that for maybe five minutes, and then I launched into showing what I have found with my climate hobby. I included chart after chart of data that clearly showed there was fraud and cherry picking bias used by alarmists presenting climate data in order to try to make their point.namely that the Earth faces a catastrophe because of emissions into the atmosphere by Man.

I didn't really know what to expect, because this was the first time I had ever made a public presentation of any of my hobbies. And when I looked out into the audience, what I saw might best be described as stunned silence. I clearly knew that audience was generally liberal, and had assumed that Jay Leno was also. But as soon as I was done, he rushed to the stage, took me off to the side, and told me that he didn't know anything about this, or that the subject was even debatable.

It really surprised me that someone who reaches millions of people every evening could be so totally insulated from any skeptical views on what the alarmists were trying to sell as a future catastrophe. What shocked me most is that I had originally been thinking that the average viewer was at least aware that there are two sides to the issue, rather than almost universally accepting alarmist positions as absolute truth.



A very frank video

About how the carbon dioxide tax land scam works in Australia. It is truly extraordinary to see how much money is involved and where it goes

If the video does not come up, go here.

Two questions.

1. Why does it take a TV group based in the Philippines to provide this insightful view into what is happening in Australia - just WHERE are the so-called mainstream Australian media on issues like this (that's a rhetorical question: no need to answer); and

2. When will Koozzoo make similar programs explaining the shonky science of climate change, the irrationality of MRET schemes and the futility of alternative energy as a source for the grid?

NSW Councils can jettison UN sea-rise rules

THE O'Farrell government will ditch UN sea-level rise predictions as the basis for coastal management, after local council decisions based on what climate change might do by the end of the century shattered waterfront property values.

The move, foreshadowed by The Australian in March, is likely to lead to renewed national debate on the application of long-term greenhouse effect forecasts to actual planning policy.

In an announcement today, the state government will say that climate change science is "continually evolving", producing uncertainty surrounding sea level rise predictions. The change follows an extensive review by a cabinet committee that re-examined the science of coastal processes.

It comes after revelations in The Weekend Australian owners of 62 beach-front properties at Lake Cathie on the NSW mid-north coast had suffered huge drops in the value of their homes after the Port Macquarie-Hastings council placed notations on their planning certificates saying they were at risk of coastal erosion. Another 17 home-owners at Lake Cathie had faced eviction, when a Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation study recommended "planned retreat" in the face of erosion, a proposal later rejected by the council.

Lake Cathie was one of 15 coastal erosion "hot spots" on the NSW seaboard identified by the former Labor government. Local councils covering those areas are in varying stages of developing coastal zone management plans, and have been required by laws introduced by Labor to take into account sea-level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These laws compelled coastal councils to prepare for a forecast sea-level rise of 40cm by 2050 and 90cm by the turn of the century. Planners apply a formula known as the Bruun Rule, which estimates that every centimetre of sea-level rise will bring the tide a metre inland based on a standard beach, leading to coastal erosion.

Special Minister of State Chris Hartcher will announce a new coastal management policy that would free councils from having to rely on the IPCC predictions. In a statement, Mr Hartcher says "the heavy-handed application of Labor's sea-level rise planning benchmarks for 2050 and 2100 would go".

"The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer has identified uncertainty in the projected rate of future sea-level rise given that the scientific knowledge in the field is continually evolving."

Based on the long-term IPCC predictions, the Port Macquarie-Hastings council in 2008 placed "Section 149" notations on houses at Lake Cathie warning they could be subject to coastal erosion, although they are separated from the beach by a 60m-70m strip of bushland and are nine metres above sea level. The notations had caused property values to fall by an average of 44 per cent based on sample valuations of four houses.

"There has been concern about the negative impacts on property values from these unclear Section 149 certificate notations," Mr Hartcher says in the statement.

The NSW government would issue advice to all councils to guide the preparation and use of section 149 certificates. "This will provide much-needed certainty for local communities on how these certificates refer to future coastal erosion hazard," the statement says.

The government will announce further changes to coastal management policy. Councils preparing coastal zone management plans will be given an extra 12 months to complete them.


Green Party losing votes big-time -- as their radicalism becomes known

AFTER a dramatic lift in electoral support over the past decade, rising from 2.1 per cent of the House of Representatives vote in 1998 to 11.8 per cent at the 2010 election and doubling their parliamentary representation from five to 10, the Greens may have hit a ceiling as their supporters appear to desert them in droves.

Saturday's NSW local government elections saw the Greens lose votes across a range of disparate groups and in almost every area of the state, from the coastal enclave of Byron Bay to the western suburbs of Sydney and the Blue Mountains beyond, and to the inner-city areas of Sydney that were fast emerging as a political base. While it may only be a series of municipal elections in one state, the problem for the Greens is that it comes after so many other recent lacklustre electoral performances and a discernible slide in opinion polls.

The Greens failed to perform strongly, let alone win, the recent by-elections for the state seats of Melbourne in Victoria and Heffron in NSW. In the Queensland and Northern Territory state elections, the Greens vote declined. The Greens argue their emergence as a third political force is only a transitory step towards being a mainstream alternative to the major parties. But, as the vast majority of voters seem to be content opting for Labor or the coalition parties for now, it must be time for the Greens to assess why it is that the voters are no longer going Green.

For too long the party has been content to operate in a political world devoid of reality and responsibility. The Greens make the incessant yet audacious claim that they encapsulate a holier-than-though approach to politics. But, as we have reported, the party is riddled with factions and is racked with internal divisions just like the major parties. The Greens evade scrutiny. They do not allow journalists to report the full proceedings of their conferences. They decry the influence of money in politics, yet accepted the largest individual political donation in Australian history -- $1.68 million from Wotif website pioneer Graeme Wood. When the Greens' party room witnessed a tussle for the deputy leadership between Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young after the last election, it was not revealed until weeks later.

Although taking over from Bob Brown as leader would be a tough ask for anyone, Senator Milne has not taken the Greens forward by explaining how the party would fund its policies, showing it understands the vital art of compromise in politics -- especially over asylum-seeker policy -- or by developing an alternative mainstream policy agenda to interest voters. Instead, the costly list of Greens promises continues to lengthen, from implementing the Gonski Report on school funding to a National Dental Scheme and a National Disability Insurance Scheme. Criticising the Catholic Church, as Senator Milne did in The Weekend Australian, will also not help to win over mainstream voters. Meanwhile, the Greens want to shut down the mining sector, which has laid the basis for much of our economic prosperity and boosts the retirement incomes of many of its voters. It is no wonder that in the Greens heartland, stretching from Balmain to Byron Bay, the voters are turning against the party for taking them for granted.




The graphics problem: Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here and here


1 comment:

Joseph said...

Paul Douglas left out the best reason to oppose AGW: It provides a handy excuse to ignore anti-nuclear activists.