Switchable Water

Written by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Some media are abuzz with the latest invention, Switchable Water, and other “switchable” things. If you believe the stories, these switchables will solve all kinds of problems, reduce energy requirements for a variety of technologies and so forth. It sounds like a real panacea; some even claim that it will force a rewrite of chemistry textbooks.

Laws of Nature

Chemistry and physics are specific fields of the natural sciences which are governed by inextricable laws of nature. One of those laws says that you cannot create energy out of nothing. Therefore, if you want to elevate the energy content of a mixture of substances, for example by separating it into pure components of the mixture, you require energy. The exact form of energy you add is not important; it could be mechanical energy, or electrical energy, or thermal energy (heat). In some cases any one of these will do the trick. The important part of it is, though, that you need the same amount of energy to make it happen, regardless of the form you use.

Perpetuum mobile

So, when someone comes along with an idea which claims that it reduces the energy requirement for any process be very careful. More likely than not, it is a modern version of the Perpetuum mobile, i.e. the perpetual motion machine which is outlawed by Mother Nature.

Ideas involving one or another method to create a sort of Perpetuum mobile have been around for millennia. Just look at the drawing by Villard de Honnecourt (13th century).

perpetuum mobile

As far as I am concerned, these new “switchables” may well exist, but the claims as to their reduction of energy requirements for chemical or physical processes which involve very distinct changes in energy are bunk. Perhaps the term “Witchable” would be more appropriate to describe the claimed energy savings.

Continue Reading

Former U.S. Navy Meteorologist Blasts Super Storms Hype

Written by Dr. Martin Hertzberg

A staunch liberal and former navy weather expert writes to the New York Times and his local newspaper, the Summit Daily News to correct absurd media claims connecting ‘Superstorm Sandy’ to man-made global warming.

hurricane sandy

Citing one of the world’s top meteorologists as his source Dr.  Martin Hertzberg tears a hole in the cherry-picked alarmist claims made in an article by Tim Lydon,  an Alaskan parks ranger and occasional jobbing journalist who gets plenty of column inches pontificating about meteorology without any apparent science training. Dr. Hertzberg is co-founder and senior fellow of Principia Scientific International, a fast-growing science body campaigning for higher standards and greater transparency in discredited government science. While the Summit Daily News has published Hertzberg’s riposte there was no such joy at the NYT. Below is an unabridged version of Hertzberg’s letter:

 Tim Lydon in his 12/7/12 article entitled “Super Storms, here they come” claims that Hurricane Sandy as well as last year’s giant storm near the Alaskan coast were “strikingly similar, and both point to a climate destabilized by fossil fuel emission.” He has cherry picked two cases, but what does the totality of the data show? The data for Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) from 1972-2012 shown in Energy Tribune  (which includes Sandy in the 2012 data point) shows that the 2012 (ACE) was markedly lower than the average for that 40-year period. Here is Prof. William Grey, of CSU, one of the world’s most distinguished meteorologist on the subject: “The longest recorded period of no major (category 3,4,5) hurricane landfalls in the U. S. has occurred during the last several years (2006-2012). We have also had 20 fewer major U. S. hurricane landfall events in the last 47 year period (1960-2012) than we had during the earlier 47 year (1919-1965) period. And this decrease occurred during the time of rising CO2 levels”. Where is the destabilization Lydon is talking about?

Lydon then goes on to regurgitate the rogues gallery of climate change “talking points”: “warming oceans and rising sea levels” as “observable phenomena driven by the atmospheric build up of greenhouse gases”. Again, what do the data actually show? In www.climate4you.com October 2012 update, you will find that global sea surface temperatures like near-surface air temperatures have been essentially constant (or even decreased slightly) over the last 10 years. Lydon’s suggestion that the observed current sea level rise of about one-tenth of an inch in one year’s time can have any significant effect on a storm surge of 15-20 feet in a day’s time is clearly absurd.

The climate change echo chamber of environmental activists that Lydon and his fellow “Writers on the Range” are tuned in to is no less fact deficient than the right-wing, reactionary echo chamber of the Fox News network that we liberals detest. For some authenticity, integrity, and a breath of fresh air, the reader is referred to the recent open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations. It was signed by some 130 of the world’s most knowledgeable and distinguished scientists (including Prof Grey) and is available online at the Financial Post.[1]

That letter tells it like it is:

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased…..the hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused or will cause dangerous global warming is not supported by the evidence.”


Dr. Martin Hertzberg

Former U.S. Navy Meteorologist, author and climate science analyst


 [1] ‘Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists,’ (Nov 29, 2012) opinion.financialpost.com (accessed online: December 12, 2012).

Continue Reading

Science Misconduct Skyrockets as Governments and Media Look Away

Written by

We’ve all heard of the global banking fraud. But corruption in science is also costing us billions. Increasing evidence points to an epidemic in scientific misconduct as governments, science institutes and the media fail to address the common core of this societal malaise.


In Britain, as institutions such as the Institute of Physics and the BBC are currently being exposed in corruption and incompetence, we examine the latest data to see how far scientists have been  falling down that slippery slope to ignominy.

Daniele Fanelli first brought attention to this issue in 2009 with the publication of her shocking findings in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One. In this article we explore why, despite growing evidence of widespread scientific misconduct, few media outlets, governments or science institutions appear willing to address the issue.

Surveys among scientists themselves suggest we may draw strong parallels between the deregulation of the banking sector and the self-regulation of the press and the rise of corruption in the science. We see that, just as with any organized crime, scientists are more prone to commit data fraud when three factors combine:  significant financial reward or prestige acquired from being dishonest, lax standards and/or regulation, and a prevailing institutional mindset that tacitly condones or ignores improper behavior.

Fanelli’s study was based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys conducted between 1986 and 2005. It found there existed far more corruption than the public stereotype of science showed. Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, found that one in seven scientists admit to knowing of colleagues who have committed serious breaches of professional conduct. Her research showed  46 percent of scientists surveyed admit they have seen “questionable practices,” including data “cherry-picking” and altering scientific findings by work colleagues to fit the agenda of a funding source. Yet, only two percent of all scientists surveyed admitted to having faked results themselves, suggesting the problem may be an inherent endemic refusal to confront the issue.

When Mainstream Media & Institutions Enable Science Corruption

The evidence certainly suggests that the problem emanates from the top down. Last week two former senior figures on the Energy Committee of the Institute of Physics (IoP) triggered a new scandal by blowing the whistle on years of“institutional bias” over global warming hype at the top of one of Britain’s most venerated science bodies.

Outraged by years of endless pro-green shenanigans  by administrators within the prestigious and once unimpeachable Institute of Physics, prominent IoP members Peter Gill and Terri Jackson, leaked hundreds of official emails revealing coercion, bullying and censorship to favor  lobbyists in the global warming agenda. Despite the gravity of these new revelations not one mainstream news outlet chose to pick up on the story. Of course, with so much of the “old” media still sold on environmentalism organisations like the IoP have little to fear if exposed for having long sold out to Big Green.

And this is hardly surprising when you consider the true extent of media bias  shown recently in the astonishing “28Gate” scandal. Last month compelling new evidence exposed the  monolothic BBC, Britain’s prime public broadcaster, rigging a key policy-making committee with pro-global warming advocates, in contempt of the BBC’s legal requirement concerning strict impartiality.

As Fanelli’s study proved, when scientists are able to see others are covering up for them or condoning their wrong doing then they are more likely to massage, alter or interpret their data in ways to suit their paymasters – such changes can be very subtle and sometimes even escape the researchers’ conscious control. This is the realm of “noble cause corruption” and is a tag increasingly being applied to climate researchers eager to “save the planet.”

And What of Our Political Leaders?

But there is also another sinister element in the mix. There is a growing public awareness  in Britain of the unwillingness of government to correct corruptive practices among the bigger players in society. A perception is growing that it is the petty wrongdoer who will be punished hardest while criminality among the elite classes may more readily escape justice. Whether this perception is right or wrong, politicians must take the ultimate blame for it. History tells us we often judge our political leaders most critically by how they react to a crisis. But how many big bankers faced criminal prosecutions in the wake of the banking collapse? How many climate scientists proven to have rigged their data were brought to trial? What will Prime Minister Cameron’s government do next in the wake of the damning Leveson Report on press standards?

It is this pattern of inertia at the highest level that may in part explain why Fanelli’s study, despite much soul-searching upon publication in 2009, has since generated so little action. Let’s not also forget that the UK government investigated Climategate. Lord Oxburgh in 2010 officially identified climate researchers as poor data handlers creating “errors” that would be inexcusable among trained statisticians. But what was done about it?

Oxburgh had recommended that the home of the climate scandal, the University of East Anglia (UEA), should engage outside statisticians to ensure no further repeat of their “error-prone” mangling of Earth’s historic temperatures. The BBC’s Richard Black didn’t even mention that key  specific recommendation. Thereafter, the story dropped off the mainstream media radar and there have been no follow up reports as to what, if any government action followed to ensure that the UEA cleaned up its act, despite the second-rate university continuing to enjoy lucrative taxpayer grants.

Cynics will say the mainstream media has successfully swept the Climategate scandal under the carpet for a reason. Broadcasters are again plying their usual glib climate scare stories premised with “scientists say;” as if what climate scientists peddle is somehow beyond journalistic skepticism.

Only in the blogosphere does it appear actual cutting-edge journalism is being done. It is also the place where new science associations are being formed. The “old” media appears is as inept or biased in its reporting on the rise in science fraud as it has been about the banking fraud or journalistic “phone hacking” and other misconduct. But “cooking the data,” is a long-standing process that mathematician Charles Babbage in 1830 defined as “an art of various forms, the object of which is to give to ordinary observations the appearance and character of those of the highest degree of accuracy.”  And it’s an age-old problem because – as we saw in banking, so it is in science – numbers are all too easily “mined” to forge a statistically significant relationship to support predetermined expectation. Too often conflicts of interest are concealed and as one observer noted,“misbehaviours lie somewhere on a continuum between scientific fraud, bias, and simple carelessness, so their direct inclusion in the “falsification” category is debatable, although their negative impact on research can be dramatic. Henceforth, these misbehaviours will be indicated as “questionable research practices.””

Fanelli’s study warrants serious consideration because she found that no less than a third of scientists admit to using such “questionable research practices.” With so much science now being taxpayer-funded it is alarming to know that a third of the science we pay for is “questionable.” Moreover, Fanelli identifies that the surveys suggest a great reluctance among scientists to admit to dishonesty, such that it is believed the actual frequencies of misconduct could be far higher than this.

Fanelli is sure that number is very much “a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.” And as with science, as with banking so that the objective-minded soul-searchers among us can be left in little doubt this is a societal problem.

So when Fanelli concludes, “data fabrication and falsification –let alone other questionable practices- are more prevalent than most previous estimates have suggested,” we can rest assured that self-serving institutes like the BBC and Institute of Physics (and many politicians) have been enablers in perpetuating the ongoing rot within science. In the same way our political reacted to the banking collapse, so are they responding to the decline in scientific standards – if it serves their interests to turn a blind eye then they will.

Until we see the day when a public outcry forces a change, expect little action triggered by the Leveson Report into press standards just as there were no criminal prosecutions in the wake of the banking collapse or against government scientists who cooked the climate books.

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Absence of any Greenhouse Gas Warming Dulls Doha Climate Conference

Written by

Government-funded climate science is entering its death throes yet governments still want to tax carbon dioxide at the latest international climate conference in Doha. With no global warming trend for 15 years what does the latest science say about the “greenhouse gas effect” and ‘heat trapping gases’?

DOHA climate conference

Science is fast entering a new climate of realism about carbon dioxide. Eight leading scientists from Principia Scientific International (PSI) were among the 125-plus signatories of a key open letter last week to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon protesting at pointless policies to raise carbon taxes when there is no global warming.

What sets the eight PSI experts apart from the other 120 or so is that they are in the vanguard of debunking the cornerstone of carbon dioxide fears: the greenhouse gas effect. Today Piers Corbyn launches his own blistering attack against mainstream media coverage of those Doha climate talks.

The focus of Corbyn’s venom is a particularly biased new Bloomberg article hyping the new U.S. government’s strategy to squander a further $100 billion of taxpayer monies by 2020 on pointless greenhouse gas-cutting initiatives. Corbyn pulls no punches, “CO2 [carbon dioxide] warmist delusionism is pointing the world in the wrong direction.”

Blame the Sun, Gravity and Hydrological Cycle, Not CO2

And Corbyn should know what he’s talking about. He’s widely regarded as the world’s leading independent long-range weather forecaster – no one has a better handle on what actually drives Earth’s climate. As advocated by PSI, Corbyn insists climate is driven by three key factors: the sun, latent heat (via water cycle) and gravity. All the evidence, says Corbyn, now shows carbon dioxide (CO2) has nothing to do with it. He has a point. Since 1998 global temperatures have flat-lined but atmospheric levels have risen exponentially. This proves there is no correlation between the two.

As the British weather expert insists,”there is no observed or proxy real data in the real world which demonstrates that CO2 increases contribute to warming and there is not one scientist in the world who can produce real data from recent centuries or millenia (or more) to show this.”

Backing Corbyn is Joe Postma, a young Canadian astrophysicist and rising star at Principia Scientific International (PSI) who demonstrates on his new blog what a slew of independent climate experts, including Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller have shown: Earth’s gravity is the elephant in the room – an overlooked thermostat regulating atmospheric temperature. [1]

Also added to the mix should be latent heat (via the water cycle). Postma and his colleagues have the numbers to prove that it’s latent heat along with gravity that moderate incoming solar energy as the real climate mechanism without any need to factor in the bogus ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE). With climatologists now admitting they can’t understand why there is no longer any link between levels of CO2 and temperature, they are also shown unable or unwilling to explain what has gone wrong with their GHE theory.

Sensible discussion about climate is increasingly being left to independent researchers in the blogosphere. Online is where more science papers are being published independently of the broken ‘pal review’ system of mainstream science journals. The beauty of online review is that it is far more open and lively with no holds barred across many competing web sites. One of several forums where there is dynamic and informed discussion is Tallbloke’s blog. Here you will see genuine debate over the new science provided by PSI and the ‘Slayers’ (or cynically called “the deniers”). As Postma sums it up, Earth’s gentle climate “is actually already described simply by its heat capacity, and latent heat.” A bold yet common sense declaration that will bring no shock to the sensibilities of meteorologists trained to understand barometric pressure and the role of hydrological cycle.

Here’s what one meteorologist, Ulric Lyons has to say, “water vapour, which is considered to be the dominant ‘greenhouse gas,’ reduces peak daytime surface temperature (tropics, summer at higher latitude).”

So it seems water, via latent heat, is a moderating effect in climate. Indeed, and plenty of actual empirical evidence tells us so, as demonstrated by recent experiments of Carl Brehmer. Tests in our open atmosphere prove that heat retention via latent heat and the strongest “greenhouse gas” (water vapor) actually causes lower temperatures, not higher, which tells us that what happens in our atmosphere is limited by a function of the specific heat capacity of all those gases around us.

On Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR)

For more than 30 years crank science led by NASA’s James Hansen sought to dodge that powerful climate machine: Earth’s hydrological cycle, in favor of placing false emphasis on runaway radiation effects connected with CO2. Why? Because governments would rather scare us and more easily tax the air we breathe rather than admit natural variation by way of the sun, our oceans and clouds better accounts for climate change.

Indeed, Postma and his PSI colleagues have shown that when measured against conduction and convection, radiation is the most trivial mode of energy transport in our gaseous, wet atmosphere, despite what Hansen says. But even hard core climate alarmists will admit all the hype about CO2 and downward infrared radiation (DWIR) goes back to a clever political ruse from the 1980’s when UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher wanted an excuse to shut down Britain’s strike-prone coal mining industry. [2]

Thatcher, in her key speech to the Royal Society was the first world leader to stir up fear about the  “vast increase in carbon dioxide” which she described as “a greenhouse gas” that was “creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability.” But she is now proven wrong, as there has been no additional warming this century despite the rise in CO2.

But to serve her political agenda Thatcher co-opted Big Oil in the form of Shell and BP to construct the new “science” of climatology at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) as a means to eliminate coal (and those pesky striking miners) as a viable energy source. The CRU and other universities all dived into the money pit for “research funding” and serve the agenda that put the focus on atmospheric CO2 rather than the real sky “villain” water (H2O).

Water was then and still is the only true “heat trapping” driver of climate via latent heat. The latest science shows those 1980’s claims about DWIR and carbon dioxide are busted. As Postma declares, “With Carl’s [Brehmer] data and my last paper, we proved that DWIR doesn’t actually cause additional heating on the surface, on top of what the Sun can already do. With ~300 W/m^2 extra of heating power from DWIR, that should have shown up easily. It didn’t, and this has something very important to say about how adding “cold” radiation power to “hot” radiation doesn’t actually increase the temperature of the target. Cold can’t warm up hot in other words.” Read more of Postma’s Q&A here.

Not only in the science labs but also in the courtrooms are PSI experts taking apart junk greenhouse gas science. Dr. Tim Ball’s outspoken denouncement of junk UN climate modeling so outraged the sensibilities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) lead climate modeler, Professor Andrew Weaver that he then sued Ball for libel in January 2011. Now that case is about to come to an abrupt end after Weaver failed to show the court exactly how those IPCC models of the GHE actually work. As such, the world is on the brink of getting a legal validation that the greenhouse gas theory isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Meanwhile, as PSI’s openly peer-reviewed papers have shown, there is no evidence of any additional heat generation occurring in Earth’s atmosphere due to CO2. So climatologists, seemingly unable to debunk PSI’s papers have fallen back on a new strategy: claiming the GHE doesn’t add any heat to the system! Instead, they now say DWIR simply delays nighttime cooling. But as with all other claims about the GHE no one has published any numbers showing by how much. Or have they?

Well, Joe Postma has the answer for us, “Again, I am the only one who has attempted to calculate that. You take the known output at TOA [top of the atmosphere], which the ZEB [the Zero-Energy-Balance] plots shows is ~240 W/m^2, and calculate how much total energy actually gets lost over night. Then, you compare that total night time energy loss to the actual amount of stored energy in the system.”

Common sense tells us that by knowing how much energy you started with, and how much you lost, you can calculate the associated drop in temperature. In this case, the drop in temperature for the whole system over night is shown to be ~1K. However, the actual measured drop at EARTH’S SURFACE as shown by Carl Brehmer’s experimental data was in fact ~10K. An increase in cooling not a delay! So much for that “nighttime cooling” gambit.

Postma continues, “Most of the drop in temperature therefore occurs at and near the surface. So why not just say that night-time DWIR actually helps cause cooling, rather than delay cooling? There is no delay measurable…but the opposite. Don’t forget that DWIR has another half – UWIR [upward infrared], and this UWIR is being lost, whereas if IR from the atmosphere didn’t exist at all, then said energy wouldn’t be lost at all.”

In short the system perpetually operates, either faster or slower, to maintain the balance such that we always see: ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. As fellow PSI researcher Hans Schreuder characterizes it, “Just like electricity or water in a river, if there is no gradient (of any kind of energy) then there is no movement of energy; let there be a gradient and wham energy will move to equalize the setting.”

So we see that the fact DWIR exists means that UWIR exists, and if UWIR exists then it is net cooling, not net warming, since half the internal thermal energy is being LOST, and no more energy is coming in over night. If DWIR/UWIR/IR didn’t exist at all, the atmosphere wouldn’t be able lose energy at  all, and so there could be no temperature drop in the atmosphere at all. But DWIR/UWIR/IR does exist, and so energy is being lost that otherwise wouldn’t be.

As Postma sums up, “I think internal IR emission is simply passive energy exchange. It doesn’t really do anything…it is just energy being shared back and forth, but, half of the internal IR emission is UWIR – it is not all DWIR – and so the IR energy is net loss, not net gain and not delay, because if the IR didn’t exist at all, THAT would be the best way to delay cooling.” In short, once radiation enters our climate system it takes a back seat because it leaves all the real work to the hydrological cycle.

So, as Principia Scientific International has shown, if governments can’t prove global warming is due to carbon dioxide more than those other factors, then there’s no justification for hammering already hard-pressed taxpayers with more climate levies. As such we can just leave control of our climate to nature where atmospheric forces always reacts to change by seeking equilibrium, whatever we throw at it.


[1] ‘The Gravity of Some Matter,’ (January 15, 2012), tallbloke.wordpress.com (accessed online: November 30, 2012)

[2] Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988), Public Statement, Speech Archive, Margaret Thatcher Foundation (accessed online December 3, 2012)

Continue Reading

Lemmings Galore

Written by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

by Dr. Klaus L. E. Kaiser

You’ll probably have come across the term “like lemmings” before. Lemmings are small hamster-like rodents found across the Arctic land area and the term refers to their change in abundance and behavior when their number reaches a critical point. At such a point lemmings are said to follow one another to die by drowning in the sea, although there are some open questions about the veracity of such claims [1].




Lemmings are hand-sized rodents, similar to the hamsters your son or daughter (age-dependent) may find cute and would like you to raise as their pet in your place (at least until your offspring loses interest).

Anyway, lemmings and hamsters come and go. Given the right circumstances, every so often they multiply enormously. However, nature has its own way of cutting them down to size again; usually by starvation. In times with plenty of food, any species will procreate as much as possible; lemmings are no different. When the inevitable poor harvest occurs, their fortunes change dramatically. This is known from many cyclic species with cyclic population exuberance and crashes. When a crash occurs, it can reduce the previous abundance by many orders of magnitude.


OK, that’s a new word. What I mean by it is the pretense of knowing all, still doing the same thing, and expecting a different result than before. Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as “doing the same things over and over again, expecting a different result.” Of course, Einstein had his own problems. Someone with the first name Adolf did not particularly like his theories. Adolf managed to enlist a good number of learned people who all concurred that Einstein was wrong. It helped to shape the opinions in the media and the populace. There remained just one little problem: scientific proof was not available at that time, neither for nor against Einstein’s science. As it turned out later, Einstein was right. In response to the hundred-plus scientists who had claimed that he had been wrong, Einstein simply said “one [scientist] would have been enough – if I had been wrong.”

To me that is an important lesson in science. Science does not work by consensus, rather by fact. Any theory, as outlandish as it may sound to another scientist or a layman alike, will eventually be proven to be false or true. But that proof does not depend on how many people believe that the theory is correct or false, at any time. There is no substitute for scientific proof – certainly not of the kind much of the media like to hype. To give you a modern example, let’s look at the Mann Affair.

The Mann Affair

To refresh your memory, Dr. Michael Mann was a major factor, i.e. contributor and lead author to several reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His work on tree (growth) rings helped to propel his “hockey stick” graph to worldwide attention. That graph supposedly showed a causative link between carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air and the climate on earth. That graph was used by Al Gore and others to “sell” the ideas of “global warming”, the “Kyoto Protocol” and other international agreements such as the UN’s Agenda 21 with its prescriptions for all kinds of government control of your life.

Dr. Mann and some of his associates were so convinced of his work that his employer, the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) had no qualms about publishing his biography with its claim that “He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.” In fact, Mann was so enthused about his scientific prowess that he started court proceedings against others who questioned his claims and wanted to see the raw data behind them [2].

Fast forward to November 2012: The court case brought by Dr. Mann against his most outspoken critic, Dr. Timothy Ball, appears to have collapsed. Mann simply failed to provide the data on which his whole hockey stick graph is supposed to rest. As a result, Mann, and potentially others like him, may be facing counter-suits and potentially substantial damage awards, possibly even punitive actions as well. PSU may not be pleased. They could be on the hook for millions. Stay tuned.

Take Home Message

The take-home message here is simple.

Don’t fall for media hype, awards, or scientific concepts or models with claims like “the majority of scientists believe” as their justification. “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”


[1] Wikipedia entry ‘Lemmings’  wikipedia.org (accessed online: November 28, 2012)

[2] L. Bell, ‘ ClimateGate Star Michael Mann Courts Legal Disaster,’  www.forbes.com (accessed online: November 28, 2012)

Continue Reading

The Courts, Hans Jelbring and the Kiwis Bring Joy for Greenhouse Gas Deniers

Written by

Fast-growing maverick science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI) takes three more steps closer to defeating junk climate science and forcing an overhaul of the world’s “broken” science peer-review system. In the courts PSI’s chairman, Dr. Tim Ball hammers two prominent climate scientists, while in the science labs PSI’s debunk of the alleged greenhouse gas effect (GHE) has won over another slew of key recruits including a prominent climate researcher.


scales of justice


Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team. Dr. Vincent Gray, Leyland’s colleague at NZCSC also issued a press release seen as further validation of PSI’s indomitable stance in refuting greenhouse gas science.


Tim Ball Launches Legal Counter Attack against Michael Mann (& Andrew Weaver)


But it is at the courtrooms of British Columbia, Canada that we must first begin our rousing roundup of news. It is here that popular Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball delivers the evidence signalling not one, but two impending dramatic legal victories against carbon hating junk climate scientists. Specialist Canadian libel firm, Pearlman Lindholm are to announce the filing of separate counterclaims on behalf of  Dr. Ball and against discredited climate professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver. Recently the Nobel Committee affirmed that both professors lied when each claimed to be co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.


Ball’s legal team are to file stiff counterclaims in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to coincide with the announcement of his separate victories over Mann and fellow IPCC doomsayer, Weaver. Cynics will say Weaver’s qualification as a proven and adept liar who “bribed university students with research funding” helped clinch his position as new Green Party leader


Sadly, for Weaver his new political position will do nothing to save his junk science. Dismissal of his vexatious libel suit against Ball is the death knell of those discredited “complex computer models” touted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since it was filed in February 2011. This dismissal us due to Weaver’s (and Mann’s) bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to reveal the hidden evidence that supposedly underpins their science. Honest researchers would have no qualms over a little ‘show and tell’ to convince a jury their science is “settled.” But these charlatans must now think its worth blowing a cool million to keep it hidden. As such, for refusing to come clean both their lawsuits are now scheduled for summary dismissal, plus costs. The desperate duo are represented by libel expert, Roger McConchie, a big-hitting lawyer unused to having his butt kicked so emphatically round a courtroom. The news is a devastating blow to alarmist attack dogs, DeSmogblog and climate kook, David “jail the deniers” Suzuki who allegedly bankrolled Weaver’s failed lawsuit against Ball.


Yesterday (November 26, 2012) popular science blog WUWT ran a new article by Dr.Ball exposing the flaws in computer modeling. Ball and PSI are delighted and bullish after Weaver backed down over his pompous claims about the IPCC’s “complex models” that were long claimed to validate the GHE. But now the Canadian state has given ultimate legal validation of PSI’s debunk of greenhouse gas physics. In his now defeated writ Weaver tried and failed to get the court to punish Ball for declaring Weaver was part of the “corruption of climate science.” Ball further stated that Weaver was “unqualified” about climate and was dishonestly passing himself off as a climate expert when he wasn’t. Hilariously, it seems the court agrees with Ball and Weaver has removed the claim from his website. Also now given legal validity is Ball’s other claim that Weaver had his students heckle and interrupt Ball during a presentation at the University of Victoria in April, 2010.


Sharing in the joy is Dr. Hans Jelbring, a long-standing independent critic of the greenhouse gas “theory.” Dr Jelbring provided PSI with a further boost by declaring, “The initiative of PSI is much needed and I will be glad to be informed by PSI and contribute to the goals of PSI as much as my skill allows me to do.” Jelbring’s 2003 paper, published in Energy & Environment is seen as being much in accord with PSI science as well as that of Nikolov and Zeller.


New Zealand Skeptics Align with Maverick Science Body


As independent climate researchers move closer towards the universal abandonment of the greenhouse gas “theory” last week the indomitable Bryan Leyland showed his leadership by becoming the first prominent Kiwi skeptic to join PSI. Leyland, from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) is their spokesman on energy and economics while fellow NZCSC stalwart Dr. Vincent Gray is editor of the popular Kiwi newsletter. Each, along with Professor Cliff Ollier of the University of Western Australia announced their acceptance of all key elements of PSI science (see below).


 Canadian Astrophysicist, Joe Postma, who also assists the Indian space agency and is now at the vanguard of advancing PSI science, had this to say, “NZCSC has made an important declaration in their newsletter and we are very gratified. The NZCSC position is almost a perfect echo of the work the Slayers and myself have been presenting over the past 2 years and more. I am very happy to see this synchronicity!”


 Dr. Vincent Gray wrote, “In several recent newsletters I have attacked the plausibility of the basic climate model promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” In particular Dr. Gray condemned the practice of IPCC junk science in stubbornly modelling Earth as is if were flat. As Postma’s calculations have shown, it is by crassly choosing to stick with this “flat earth physics” that climatologists have gotten away for decades in duping policymakers that any such greenhouse effect exists.


 Postma’s work, most notably his latest paper, shows that IPCC models critically failed to factor into the mix legitimate heat flow differential equations nor did it take into account the impacts of latent heat, circulation, the Zero-Energy-Balance plot, etc. [1]


As Dr. Gray points out the IPCC went badly wrong because omitting these key factors was “completely at odds with meteorological science.” Dr. Gray, like Postma asserts that Earth’s surface is immediately cooled by “convection by the atmosphere and evaporation of water.”


 Postma backed Gray’s assessment by declaring, “My initial papers were based on exposing the inherent tautologies and abuse of mathematics and physics such [IPCC] models exploit, introducing a new graphical schematic model baseline for treating the system dynamically as it actually occurs in reality.”


 Thanks to such unswerving dedication to defend itself against the “dirty little secrets” of junk science, not only in the labs but in the courtrooms, Principia Scientific International is moving to the forefront as the only international science association prepared to expose the flaws woven (deliberately?) into greenhouse gas climate science.


[1] Postma, J.E., ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect,’ (October, 2012), principia-scientific.org




Continue Reading

Joe Postma:Taking Climate Back from the Flat Earthers

Written by

Third-rate science has long been welcome in climatology. It has been deliberately modeling our Earth as flat for 50 years; all to hide the fictional effect  described by the  ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ In his latest stunning analysis astrophysicist, Joe Postma again demonstrates why it’s so dangerous to trust government climate science.


The New Religion of Climate Change. The Old Boss is the Same as the New, Part 1

by Joseph E. Postma

Setting the Landscape

As we have learned in my ongoing series on the fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, climate pseudoscience invented an artificial, fictional scheme by which the atmosphere can heat itself up without the Sun, so that they could create an alarmist political movement to vilify the life-creating-gas of carbon dioxide.  What we are going to learn now is that this is not just a political movement. It is something much more profound.

I first want to speak on the level of insanity that we’re dealing with on this issue:  The people who believe in the greenhouse effect, believe it makes no difference to think of the planet as either flat, or spherical, and they believe that a flat planet Earth must actually do a better job at explaining the “average system” than a spherical planet Earth.  They believe it makes no difference whether we model the input power of sunshine at -18oC, or at +49oC.

They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49oC of heating input.  I have literally had to write out differential calculus equations proving that the Earth can be modeled as a sphere, and with real-time power from the Sun, and that it makes things very hot, and that this produces wildly different results than a flat Earth requiring the invention of a greenhouse effect.  But still, some people prefer to believe in thinking of the planet as flat.

That is as simple as my criticism is:  I look at the standard atmospheric greenhouse schematic and energy budget from climate science, see that it has a flat Earth and that sunshine is cold, and so I ask, “What difference does it make if you treat sunshine as hot, its real strength, and the Earth as a rotating sphere?”

That is the entire essence of my criticism.  Do these things make a difference?  Why wouldn’t they? Read more from this remarkable scientist here.


Continue Reading

UN Leak: Climate Science in Disarray on Human Emissions Impact

Written by

A group of authors for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admit the sun plays a far greater role in climate than previously thought. An embarrassing new leak from the prominent organization points to a schism in the ranks with many UN researchers now on record stating that changes in the sun, rather than human carbon dioxide emissions have altered Earth’s temperatures.

Alec Rawls

Up till now the role of the sun, referred to as enhanced solar forcing, received only scant mention in prior IPCC reports (AR3 and AR4) being glibly dismissed. But this is the first time IPCC authors have acknowledged the evidence that a solar mechanism seems to be at work. The source of the leak, Alec Rawls, said, “I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public.”

Rawls, who also serves on the Stanford Review’s board of directors, said it was important for this document to be immediately released because of the “public’s right to know.” Rawls declared he felt compelled to break his confidentiality agreement as an IPCC reviewer because of the “systematic dishonesty of the report” which, he says, has been corrupted by “bad faith” and “fraud.” Rawls insists “Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic [human] forcing.”

But, as expected, alarmist blog, ‘Skeptical [sic]Science’ has been quick to try to limit the damage. As per usual defenders of the IPCC “consensus” position are sticking to their forlorn claim that humans emissions of carbon dioxide rather than the sun drives our climate. But Rawls is adamant. Cited on popular skeptic blog WUWT he concluded,

The [IPCC] admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.”

Consensus” Science Illusion Busted

But most uncomfortable for the “consensus” of IPCC politicized climatology is the stark contrast in claims by IPCC authors between chapters 7 and 8 of the leaked AR5 draft. Pointedly, Chapter 7 authors admit strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing. But authors in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57) contradict their colleagues by persisting in debunked claims that natural forcing is relatively small and unchanging. The now busted “consensus” exposes the long-assumed and bizarre IPCC position that solar effects were constant and thus could be discounted. But such an unscientific assumption is well characterized by Rawl who laments, “In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years.”

But it gets worse, in chapter 10 (Figure 10.5) alarmist IPCC  authors are shown to have been using regression analysis technique in what appears to be a cynical statistical trick to remove the impacts of ocean current systems such as El Niño and La Niña and volcanic aerosols from the instrument temperature record. Critics say this ruse is just another way that junk scientists can make it appear that human emissions are the more dominant climate driver.

Nonetheless, the leaked documents prove that a substantial number of IPCC scientists now recognize that there is an underlying long term solar trend which recent scientific studies show was most evident in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.  [1.2] Principia Scientific International (PSI), a research group asserting solar impacts are ill-considered and human impacts trivial, expressed delight at these latest revelations.

The news is a timely boost for those climate researchers who have recently published papers pointing to solar, not human, impacts on climate. Among them are PSI experts Canadian astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma and Australian Douglas Cotton. [3,4]

With such stark contradictions in interpretation of the raw evidence woven into IPCC “science” we should remind ourselves that the mainstream media has consistently misrepresented the IPCC as “the world’s top scientists.” As we have seen with the likes of Lisa Alexander who didn’t even earn her PhD until 2009 yet authored the 2001 and the 2007 IPCC reports, any claims about IPCC authors as being “expert” must be treated with great caution. Certainly, critics will no doubt point to the obvious contradictions evidenced by the conflicting statements of authors in chapters 7 and 8 as proof that one of the most important qualification to be an IPCC author is a commitment to green activism.

A full download of the leaked AR5 Report can be accessed here.


[1] Roman Warm Period (Europe — Mediterranean) – Summary,co2science.org (accessed online: December 14, 2012)

[2] Hoffman, D.L., ‘Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered,’ theresilientearth.com (accessed online: December 14, 2012)

[3] Postma, J.E.,’ A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect,’ (October, 2012), principia-scientific.org (accessed online: December 14, 2012)

[4] Cotton, D.J., ‘Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms, (November, 2012), principia-scientific.org (accessed online: December 14, 2012)

Continue Reading

How Corruption Is Strangling U.S. Innovation

Written by


If there’s been one topic that has entirely dominated the post-election landscape, it’s the fiscal cliff. Will taxes be raised? Which programs will be cut? Who will blink first in negotiations? For all the talk of the fiscal cliff, however, I believe the US is facing a much more serious problem, one that has simply not been talked about at all: corruption.
But this isn’t the overt, “bartering of government favors in return for private kickbacks” corruption. Instead, this type of corruption has actually been legalized. And it is strangling both US competitiveness, and the ability for US firms to innovate. The corruption to which I am referring is the phenomenon of money in politics.


Lawrence Lessig’s Republic, Lost, details many of the distortions that occur as a result of all the money sloshing around in the political system: how elected representatives are being forced to spend an ever-increasing amount of their time chasing donors for funds, for example, as opposed to chasing citizens for votes. Former congressman and CIA director Leon Panetta described it as “legalized bribery”; something which has just “become part of the culture of how this place operates.”


But of all the negative impacts this phenomenon has had, it’s the devastating impact it has on US competitiveness that should be most concerning.


One of the prime drivers of economic growth inside America over the past century has been disruptive innovation; yet the phenomenon that Lessig describes is increasingly being used by large incumbent firms as a mechanism to stave off the process. Given how hard it can be to survive a disruptive challenge, and how effective lobbying has proven in stopping it, it’s no wonder that incumbent firms take this route so often.


The process by which firms do this is rarely overt, and usually couched in the language of regulation. When it involves nascent disruptors running headlong in to regulation that protects the incumbents, then the innovators are painted as “cutting corners.” Conversely, when new regulation makes sense in order to foster innovation and disruption, but it doesn’t suit the interests of the incumbents, then that regulation will often be characterized by incumbents as “stifling red tape.” It seems to be happening more and more frequently, across sectors.


Read more of James Allworth’s article in the Harvard Business Review.


Continue Reading

To Anthony Watts and WUWT: Please Stop Your Greenhouse Gas Censorship

Written by

Skeptics are rightly proud of the success of popular science blog, WUWT as an antidote to government misinformation and bias about man-made global warming. However, an irrational censorship over greenhouse gas science by site owner Anthony Watts may be about to damage the credibility of this supposed champion of higher standards in climate science.

WUWT magic gas tirade Dec 2012

For almost two years Mr. Watts has stubbornly opposed all requests to host a debate on his blog about new science discrediting the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the very cornerstone of alarmist claims that humans are dangerously warming the atmosphere. I personally, have been banned by an irate Watts from even contacting him.

Now astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma, author of the latest groundbreaking paper ‘Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Gas Effect‘ has become the latest victim of irrational censorship at the hands of the closed-minded Watts. As Postma lamented yesterday, “Right in the middle of a perfectly good conversation, with good science being discussed Watts shut down the discussion.”  WUWT is blocking any attempt we make to link to the comment in question but the URL is:


The Watts comment reads as follows:

“Mr. Postma and everybody else involved in this idiotic discussion over “magic gas”

The greenhouse effect exists, get over it. The only questions are magnitude, sensitives [sic], and feedbacks.

This thread is closed, along with a warning to any other “Slayers” out there posing under other names (Doug Cotton this means you).

Your GHG science is pointless, wrong, and unwelcome here. Take it somehwere [sic] else, and please, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts”

Mr. Watts may have his own private reasons for wanting to preserve the status quo about that so-called “magic gas” (carbon dioxide). But as coordinator of the increasingly prominent Principia Scientific International (PSI), which has eight signatories among the 125+ of the recent open letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, I make this public plea to Mr. Watts: please show statesmanship and demonstrate your support of open science debate and lift your ban against us. If our science is “idiotic, pointless and wrong” surely your forum is a great place to prove it.

Many thanks,

John O’Sullivan


Continue Reading

Alice in Wonderland science

Written by Kelvin Kemm

Our energy and environment deserve better – in South Africa and Qatar

By Kelvin Kemm

A few weeks ago, perhaps as a prologue to the “global warming disaster” convention in Doha, Qatar, South Africa’s Department of Environment Affairs took out a full-page advertisement in our country’s newspapers, promoting National Marine Week.

Alice in Wonderland

The ad showed a map of the Antarctic continent, from above the pole, surrounded by the vast blue Southern Ocean. It also promoted South Africa’s new Antarctic research vessel, SA Agulhas II.

The advertisement’s text mentioned the massive Antarctic Circumpolar Current, which is responsible for distributing vital nutrients to the world’s oceans. It noted that the truly massive quantities of phytoplankton found in the ocean are vital marine building blocks in ocean processes. All that is true, and I certainly applaud efforts to protect the environment and promote National Marine Week and our country’s research efforts.

But then, sadly, the ad’s discussion of physics content went off the rails. Referring to phytoplankton, it said “these microscopic creatures also use carbon to create energy.” Wrong!

The most basic law of thermodynamics says energy is neither created nor destroyed, but merely converted from one form to another. The only way to “create” energy is via a nuclear process, whereby matter is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction, as Einstein famously postulated over a century ago. Nuclear processes operate outside the laws of thermodynamics, but there is certainly no nuclear process going on in phytoplankton.

I could have lived with that slip up in the physics. But it got worse – much worse. The ad went on to blame global warming for upsetting the phytoplankton. In a declaration straight out of Alice in Wonderland, it asserted: “The increase in surface temperature over Antarctica from climate change is having a catastrophic knock-on effect, depleting phytoplankton stocks, melting the Antarctic ice sheet and causing an alarming reduction in all marine life.”

First, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no “alarming reduction in all marine life.” None of my colleagues are aware of it. Second, the surface temperature over Antarctica is not increasing.

In fact, a new record has just been attained. Antarctic sea ice has just reached an all-time record for total acreage. Day 265 of the year 2012 set an all time record, and then on day 266 that record was broken. The days 265 to 270 were the six highest Antarctic sea ice extent days of all time.

The environment department then compounded these errors by committing the unforgivable scientific sin of claiming a supposed increase in surface air temperature over Antarctica “is having a catastrophic knock-on effect” – then providing no evidence to back up its assertion and not telling readers what the alleged knock-on effect is.

I cannot even begin to imagine how this knock-on is supposed to alter the Circumpolar Current, which in turn is somehow supposed to affect the “energy creation” capabilities of phytoplankton. Come off it, folks.

There is so much good Antarctic science to be proud of – and, for that matter, really fine South African scientific achievements in the Antarctic to brag about. That the DEA would feel compelled to celebrate National Maritime Week by resorting to phytoplankton scares supposedly related to nonexistent Antarctic heating is beyond mystifying.

Meanwhile, over the last few months, newspaper stories have told of reduced sea ice extent at our planet’s other pole, the Arctic. Terms like “alarming rate” of ice depletion were bandied about casually. Yes, there were reductions in Arctic sea ice cover.

However, on September 18, a video posted by NASA on its website showed that a large and long lasting Arctic cyclone “wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover,” by “breaking up sea ice.” The unusual reduction in Arctic sea ice cover was due to high winds – not to any warming of the Arctic or global warming in general. NASA’s belated analysis demonstrated that a large section of ice north of the Chukchi Sea was cut off by the churning storm, broken up and pushed south into warmer waters, where it melted.

The storm also broke up other ice, accelerating drifting and melting elsewhere. Reuters finally reported that “NASA says a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska in early August and moved toward the centre of the Arctic Ocean, weakening the already thin sea ice as it went.”

NASA noted that this was an “uncommon event” and that there have been only about eight storms of similar strength during August in 34 years of satellite records. However, a major storm every four years is not all that “uncommon.” Paul A. Newman, Chief Scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, added that such wind disturbances produce many effects and can also lift warmer water from the depths of the Arctic Ocean up to the surface to accelerate melting.

For some reason – probably having to do with its regular promotion of “dangerous manmade global warming” claims – the storm story was barely mentioned in the mainstream popular media. By contrast, the “alarming ice cover reduction” narrative was covered extensively.

Now jump back in time five years, to December 12, 2007. On that date Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein distributed an article that stated: “An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer – a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.” 

Well, five years have come and gone. Borenstein was dead wrong. Does anyone suppose the AP will now publish an apology, admitting that its “science writer” was on thin ice when he made this outlandish statement, and saying he should not have tried to scare the public like that?

Perhaps the answer can be found in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.

“There’s no use trying,” Alice said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Especially with the Doha climate change confab in full swing, taxpayers, newspaper readers – and anyone dreaming of a better life through reliable, affordable energy – deserves more honest reporting and more science-based energy and environmental policies than they have been getting.


Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington, DC (www.CFACT.org). Dr. Kemm received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.



Continue Reading 1 Comment

Top British Science Body in Revolt over Global Warming Censorship

Written by

Shock new email revelations show that since 2007 senior members of the UK’s prestigious Institute of Physics (IoP) cynically locked down any debate about man-made global warming. Now seasoned writer, Andrew Montford, draws on hundreds of leaked emails exposing how a clique of Big Green activists hijacked one of Britain’s most venerated institutions to shamelessly promote a one-sided version of the hottest environmental issue.

 BISHOP HIll institutional bias

In his startling new pamphlet, ‘Institutional Bias’ Montford lays out the evidence selected from a vast body of leaked internal emails. Two whistleblower insiders were the source, Peter F. Gill, formerly the chairman of the IoP’s Energy Group and Terri Jackson (MSc Mphil), former science adviser to Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Rev. Ian Paisley and Founder of the IOP’s Energy Group.

 The incredible correspondence details a conspiracy to silence any and all dissent challenging the alarmist mantra of human-induced climate change. Self-serving senior figures within the IoP are shown to have harassed and harangued every attempt for a grassroots debate among members over the global warming controversy.

 Montford, a well-respected figure on the skeptic side of the debate and author of the best seller ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion,’ the book that exposed climatologist, Michael Mann’s iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph, is damning in his assessment of this fiasco.  Montford argues the leaked emails prove, “The voice of the membership is increasingly being silenced, with headquarters staff having arranged to abolish the annual representatives meeting, at which grievances had formerly been aired.”

 The IoP is a vast organisation of 45,000 members with a multi-million income derived from member subscriptions, journal publishing and meetings. This new evidence puts flesh on the bones of what has for too long been glibly dismissed by elements of the mainstream press as “conspiracy theorization.”

We see in black and white the email evidence of how, when the Climategate controversy hit the news, pro-green elements in the IoP and British press were quick to paper over the cracks. Despite an upswelling among members for a full debate the IOP’s hierarchy silenced criticism in preference of a  “clear” message on global warming. In this the IoP chose to state “there is no doubt that climate change is happening, that it is linked to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, and that we should be taking action to address it now,” much to the ire of disenfranchised grassroots members. IoP’s Jackson was snipped by the green censor’s scissors when a version of her dissenting article, ‘Pouring cold water on global warming’ published in The Belfast Telegraph and due to also appear inThe Times,  was “blocked” by green activists in London. Meanwhile Gill’s integrity was thrown into question by The Guardian.

Gill is delighted with the impact Montford’s pamphlet is making, “I must say that the reaction so far has been largely positive albeit that it has made some people sad and depressed.”

Initially, when Climategate hit the headlines Gill played a role in helping to draft the submission, from the Institute of Physics (IOP) to Parliament. The statement reflected widespread concerns that scientists at the University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that key reconstructions of past temperature could not be relied upon. But Gill’s statement was not what pro-green propagandists within the IoP wanted and a backlash ensued when the controversy was catapulted to prominence in the UKnational press

Shaken and outraged by their experience Gill and Jackson now both choose to ply their talents within the maverick rival science body, Principia Scientific International (PSI). Both are assisting their new-found colleagues in compiling further hard-hitting revelations, including the shabby way the IoP subverted and blocked a scheduled talk by prominent skeptic, Lord Lawson. Ominously for the beleagured IoP Gill warns, “Andrew has chosen not to ventilate the whole question of how those that had the Lawson meeting cancelled got away with it… but that’s another rather long story….”

With the full set of embarrassing emails now in the hands of PSI we can expect to see a more objective light shone on this once unimpeachable British science institute. Read more  here.


Continue Reading


Written by

After the announcement by Bryan Leyland, Chairman and co-founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, (NZCSC) that he has joined PSI we are further delighted to publish the latest NZCSC newsletter declaring alignment with PSI’s views on the discredited science of the so-called greenhouse gas theory.




By Dr. Vincent Gray




In several recent newsletters I have attacked the plausibility of the basic climate model promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Its assumptions include the following.


The Earth is flat

The sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity

Energy interchange in the climate is almost entirely by radiation

Energy flow parameters are constants with no variability

Energy flow is “balanced” with input equal to output

Change in this system is entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in the atmosphere


These assumptions are completely at odds with meteorological science which finds that energy changes in the climate are


Energy absorption from the sun to the surface in an irregular fashion, exclusively  by day

Immediate cooling of the heated surfaces by

    Heat transfer to the surface,

    Convection by the atmosphere and

    Evaporation of water.

Transport of warmed air and water by complex circulation patterns whose accurate prediction is confounded by our poor understanding of fluid flow, referred to as “chaos”


Energy is returned to space from all surfaces and from every level of the atmosphere by infra red radiation.


No importance has been established for an influence of so-called greenhouse gases.


A Greenhouse is a device for continuing to receive solar radiation, but protecting a small patch of The earth from the “chaos” of air movement and precipitation  outside it, Internally the absorbed radiation is received and cooled in the same way as outside, by convection and by evaporation of water. The convected air cannot mix with the rest of the atmosphere so the internal atmosphere is above the outside. As greenhouses are not insulated it cools by conduction from the air to the frame which is in turn cooled by the outside “chaos” which becomes dominant when the sun does not shine. There is no role for trace gases, although carbon dioxide may be supplied to enhance growth.


The so-called “greenhouse effect” thus has nothing to do with the behaviour of a greenhouse.


The IPCC chooses to deal with only part of the total climate, by what it calls “the climate system”

This is defined as follows:


“The Climate System is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere, the biosphere and the interactions between them”


This does not include the other components of the real climate, which are the sun, the Earth and outer space The Real Climate is a heat engine.


Input energy is radiation from the sun and the exhaust is infra red radiation to outer space. In the process the sun’s energy increases its entropy.


The “Climate System” is only part of this complete system so it cannot comply with the conditions for thermodynamic equilibrium, that only apply to systems isolated from all inputs and outputs of energy. There is therefore no reason to assume that the claimed balance between input and output energy should mean that it is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that “back radiation” deriving from the Stefan/Boltzmann radiation law cannot exist which some try to claim.


The most important function of this engine is to maintain all living organisms on earth. This is achieved by various biological mechanisms which are able to change the absorbed radiation energy into chemical energy which can be used to provide all the pathways by which all organisms exist. The most important mechanism is the use of chlorophyll by plants which by absorbing radiant energy enables them to synthesize carbohydrates from atmospheric carbon dioxide and water. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is thus the source of almost all life on earth, yet some seem to think it is a pollutant.


It is possible to derive a model of the real climate by an ilustration which shows one or more of the following features:


A rotating earth which comes under the influence of increasing intensity of the sun’s ray from dawn to noon each day, with a decline from noon to dusk. All of the energy received from the sun arrives in this way, sequentially each day, The surface is then cooled by these processes..


Conduction of part of the energy absorbed into the surface layer, both solid and liquid.


Conduction of part of the heat to the layer of air next to the surface, its removal as it rises and its replacement by another layer. This is called convection and its influence is enhanced by turbulence particularly over land and by the development of complex air movements which carry the air around the entire air and convey the heat up into the atmosphere. This responsible for the Lapse Rate, as the temperature declines all the way to the tropopause as the additional energy in the atmosphere is progressively radiated outwards.


The surface is also cooled by evaporation of water, mainly from the oceans, thus removing latent heat. This heat is recovered, warming the atmosphere as the air reaches the dew point temperature higher in the atmosphere, Some of it will form liquid water, snow or hail, whose precipitation will, by day, further cool the Earth surface which is warmer than the region of the clouds. By night the precipitation may even warm the cooling surface, or there may be deposition of frost or dew which also warms the surface.


Finally, the surfaces radiate heat to space, and by night, cool until the next dawn, Also each layer of gas radiates to space. The Stefan/Boltzmann law states that radiation from gas goes in all directions, so there is “back radiation” which gets incorporated with the rest. Also the Law states that the emission energy is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. This means that most outwards radiation is from daytime surfaces, particularly from the tropics, and radiation from the atmosphere is greatest in the layer closest to the earth. This is the layer that constitutes our weather and is the basis of our weather forecasting system.


It is possible that changes on the so-called :greenhouse gases: may play a role in this system, but there is currently no evidence to support a belief that such an influence could be important despite the tremendous amount of effort that has been put in the attempt to show it. It would in any case largely involve water vapour, as another influence in addition to its vital role in latent heat transfer.


An influence of trace gases is currently covered up by the vagaries of the chaos: associated with air and ocean movements. The main object of the rather absurd IPCC model is that it avoids the influence of “chaos” by pretending it does not exist.


I have tried to provide a diagram of the Real Climate I describe but I am no good at all at using computer draw programmes. I hope this might inspire one or other of you to provide a convincing diagram of the real climate


I also attach a diagram of the lapse rate which is actually a very useful supplement to any diagram of the climate based on the realities I have described.




Vincent Gray

Prof. Cliff Ollier
School of Earth and Environment
University of Western Australia


Continue Reading

The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World

Written by J. O'Sullivan & D. Cotton

Looking through his astrophysicist’s eyes Joe Postma made a great point when observing our beautiful blue, wet planet from space: “Energy leaves the Earth, the same amount leaving over two hemispheres, as what comes in over a single hemisphere.”


Sun heats Earth on One Hemisphere only

Continue Reading 4 Comments