One Paul Gilding recently posted an article with the title “Fossil fuels are finished—the rest is just detail.” That sure made my (thinning) hair curl. What a nonsense!
This poor man (?) has no idea what he is talking about. 'Fossil fuels' (more correctly, hydrocarbons) are driving the world and will continue to do so for a very long time; in fact they are the major energy source going—and growing by leaps and bounds!
To prove my point, let’s look at some energy/fuel facts, like the bar-graph showing the world energy production by source in the year 2013, source: Manhattan Inst.
Many years ago, a colleague approached the President of the University with our plan to hold a conference on the ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky. He angrily rejected the plan saying he would not allow anything on campus associated with that charlatan. The President was a physicist and Velikovsky (pictured) had challenged prevailing scientific views.
In some ways, it doesn’t matter whether Velikovsky was right or wrong. The problem was the reprehensible actions of the scientific community. His treatment holds many lessons for today’s debate over climate change.
Complexity of the corruption by the few scientists who hijacked climate science is revealed by comparison. They quickly established their views as the prevailing ‘truth’ through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by deliberately misusing climate science and also misusing basic science. They isolated anyone who challenged either part of their false science in the same way Velikovsky was marginalized.
In April 1815, the most powerful volcanic blast in recorded history shook the planet in a catastrophe so vast that 200 years later, investigators are still struggling to grasp its repercussions. It played a role, they now understand, in icy weather, agricultural collapse and global pandemics — and even gave rise to celebrated monsters.
Around the lush isles of the Dutch East Indies — modern-day Indonesia — the eruption of Mount Tambora killed tens of thousands of people. They were burned alive or killed by flying rocks, or they died later of starvation because the heavy ash smothered crops.
More surprising, investigators have found that the giant cloud of minuscule particles spread around the globe, blocked sunlight and produced three years of planetary cooling. In June 1816, a blizzard pummeled upstate New York. That July and August, killer frosts in New England ravaged farms. Hailstones pounded London all summer.
A recent history of the disaster, “Tambora: The Eruption that Changed the World,” by Gillen D’Arcy Wood, shows planetary effects so extreme that many nations and communities sustained waves of famine, disease, civil unrest and economic decline. Crops failed globally.
“The year without a summer,” as 1816 came to be known, gave birth not only to paintings of fiery sunsets and tempestuous skies but two genres of gothic fiction. The freakish progeny were Frankenstein and the human vampire, which have loomed large in art and literature ever since.
“The paper trail,” said Dr. Wood, a University of Illinois professor of English, “goes back again and again to Tambora.”
The gargantuan blast — 100 times bigger than Mount St. Helens’s — and its ensuing worldwide pall have been the subject of increasing study over the years as scientists have sought to comprehend not only the planet’s climatological past but the future likelihood of such global disasters.
A UN-endorsed carbon offset scheme designed to reduce emissions has actually increased them massively, a study by a green think tank has found.
As well as pumping much as 600 million tonnes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the carbon credits scheme has been abused by countries like Russia and the Ukraine which have used them as a money making scam.
Vladyslav Zhezherin, one of the co-authors of the study by the Stockholm Environment Institute says:
“This was like printing money.”
Another co-author Anja Kollmuss has told BBC News.
“We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud], we didn’t expect such a large number.”
“What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn’t have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits.”
To which the two obvious questions are:
Have any of these people actually been to Russia or the Ukraine?
This stuff that these greenies have been smoking sounds totally amazing. How do we go about getting some?
Insightful (and inciteful?) new book by a respected professor examining the profit and loss trail of global warming investments shows how climate doom prophesy keeps the money rolling.
So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?
The answer is simple. The Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, annual revenues for much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
Cosmologists always claim that their black holes, mathematical fabrications entire as they are, have a finite mass. This mass, they say, is concentrated at their ‘singularity’, where volume is zero, density is infinite, and their spacetime infinitely curved.
Their singularity they say is not a mathematical artifice, not a limiting fiction, but a real physical entity which absorbs all other matter that encounters it. In this way cosmologists have even asserted that their black holes can become obese. Their black hole was first conjured from their solution to what Einstein called The Field Equations of Gravitation in the Absence of Matter.
Notwithstanding the absence of matter, Einstein claimed that a material source is still present, because his gravitational field is spacetime curvature induced by the presence of a material source. Without matter there is no gravitational field.
And what is matter? According to Einstein it is everything except his gravitational field. Now there is only one other form of Einstein’s field equations: The Field Equations of Gravitation in the Presence of Matter.
Thus, in both cases, Einstein and his followers claim that a material source is present. However, in a mathematical theory, matter cannot be both present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint. Cosmologists routinely call their contradictions ‘paradoxes’ that defy ‘common sense’.
Nonetheless, common sense does in fact know that a contradiction is a contradiction; no less than a rose by any other name is still a rose. Not only does the black hole defy common sense, it defies physics and mathematics.
1. Einstein’s Matter
Einstein’s gravitational field is not matter. According to Einstein ,
“We make the distinction hereafter between ‘gravitational field’ and ‘matter’ in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as ‘matter’.”
Thus, according to Einstein, not only is mass matter, but so too the electromagnetic fields. But Einstein’s gravitational field is not matter and so it is neither mass nor electromagnetic fields. Nevertheless, cosmologists frequently claim that Einstein’s gravitational field is matter, because it has a mass of its own. For Example, the cosmologist Gerardus ‘t Hooft (Nobel Laureate for Physics) asserts that certain critics of General Relativity,
“suffer from the misconception that a gravitational field cannot have a mass of its own.” 
Einstein’s gravitational field having a mass of its own is like the man who thought himself a poached egg.
Researcher exposes wilful and deceptive misrepresentation by American Meteorological Association (AMS) of much-cited scientific paper. AMS declines to retract.
Background: In 2000, the Bulletin of the Meteorological Society published “Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota" by Camille Parmesan, Terry Root, and Michael Willig.
The paper introduced to the peer-reviewed literature analyses by Parmesan that extreme weather events had caused an extinction event in California’s Sierra Nevada and advocated the extreme weather was the mechanism by which global warming was driving animals northward and upward as Parmesan claimed in her first controversial paper discussed here.
According to Google Scholar, the BAMS paper has been cited by 324 consensus articles. Thomson Reuter's Essential Science Indicators report that by December 2009, Parmesan went on to be ranked #2 among highly cited authors for papers devoted expressly to global warming and climate change.
Below (see link) is a map of Parmesan's study site first published in Singer, M., and C. D. Thomas (1996) Evolutionary responses of a butterfly metapopulation to human and climate-caused environmental variation. American Naturalist, vol. 148, p. S9–S39. I have added call out boxes. Notice how surgically "climate change" supposedly killed individuals on the annual plant Collinsia (Xs) in the logged clearing while just a few feet away the same species was originally reported to be thriving on its normal host plant in undisturbed habitat.
The observations of those thriving populations were later "amputated" from Parmesan's extinction story that she spun in “Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial BiotaParmesan et al biased their conclusion by omitting observations that all other individuals in the surrounding natural habitat had survived better than had ever been observed during the same weather events.
Springer Publishing, one of the world’s leading publishers of Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) books and journals, issued an announcement this week that 64 different professional articles, primarily in the medical field, had been retracted. It turns out that the vaunted peer review process, designed to ensure that multiple sets of experts evaluate the quality of the work before it hits the presses, had fallen apart. The peer reviews in some cases were found to be “highly suspicious” with bogus email addresses and questionable credentials.
Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whatever we can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter.
New Paper: Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health
New proof of systematic atmospheric geoengineering. American inter-disciplinary scientist, Dr J. Marvin Herndon (pictured) provides a fascinating new study indicating that tropospheric spraying of coal fly ash has been taking place throughout the 21st century.
Dr Herndon believes such spraying has been carried out on an international scale, and with significant ramping-up since about 2013. Herndon discloses “the consequences on public health are profound, including exposure to a variety of toxic heavy metals, radioactive elements, and neurologically-implicated chemically mobile aluminum released by body moisture in situ after inhalation or through transdermal induction.” He notes that long exposure to ultrafine-grain air pollution particulates has been associated with morbidity and premature mortality, so one “may therefore reasonably conclude that aerosolized coal fly ash … is detrimental to human health.”
Worryingly, this study points to a program of well-orchestrated disinformation, but no public disclosure, no informed consent, and no public health warnings.
Featured in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-460) Herndon writes: “The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years.”
The paper, ‘Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health,’ may be accessed in its entirety at: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/pdf.
The concept of mass environmental geoengineering isn’t new. In her 1962 book Silent Spring Rachel Carson called attention to the unintended consequences of herbicide and pesticide use, and launched the modern environmental movement. Now, there is growing evidence of a grave new and persistent global environmental public health threat that has gone unremarked in the scientific literature. Burning coal by electric utilities concentrates the impurities in “fly ash”, fine particles that used to go up the smokestack, but now are trapped because of their toxic environmental and public health hazards.
Papal Advisor Naomi Klein (pictured) admits in her much-publicized screed that ‘Global Warming’ is all about anti-capitalism – being nothing to do with science.
Klein admits progressive policies on the environment are really about what Marx and Lenin said the communist revolution desired 100 years ago — the overthrow of capitalism. This is not about science, or health, at all. “Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”
Could the message be any clearer? "This [man-made climate change] is not about science, or health, at all."
Please note that Klein uses the ambiguous term ”climate change” when she really means “man-made climate change”; it’s a classic case of misleading the public at large that any change in the climate is the fault of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Here’s further insight into Naomi Klein’s world via Martin Hertzberg’s review of Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything. ” Dr Hertzberg, a respected scientist and author on climate change, writes:
It is tragic that what should have been a debate among objective scientists evaluating the data on weather and climate, has degenerated into a partisan political diatribe. Unfortunately, Klein’s most recent book only adds to the tragedy. In pursuit of her political agenda, facts are distorted and distinguished scientists are denigrated. Here are some examples.
Klein states: “Carbon Dioxide stays in the atmosphere one to two centuries with some of it remaining for a millennium or more”.
Some 50 published papers give at most 5 years for its lifetime in the atmosphere with the best estimate from C-14 decay observed after Russian above ground tests.
Klein states that the “Medieval Warm Period was thoroughly debunked long ago”.
Not true! Hundreds of studies have established the existence of the world wide Medieval Warm period with temperatures exceeding current ones at a time when human CO2 emission was nil. Her discussion of the weather effect of volcanic eruptions neglects to mention the real big ones: Tambora and Krakatoa.
Klein completely discounts the “climategate” scandal.
The penultimate climate pow-wow is going to take place in Paris later this year. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) is widely touted as a “make-or-break” event to prevent a global climate catastrophe that’s supposed to be just around the corner.
Most likely, there will be over 10,000 government and UN representatives, all the NGOs in the world, some industry observers and a few others from all corners of the world. Even Pope Francis plans to attend and provide encyclical guidance. For the majority of the blessed, the goal will be to convert the imbeciles (like you and me) to the bad-carbon-footprint and need-for-decarbonisation belief. Will their sermons fall on eagerly listening ears?
Row, row, row your Boat
Oh, these wannabe savers of the world are not likely to arrive by trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific rowboat, nor by a wind-powered multi-mast “clipper;” those went out of style a hundred years ago. Of course, the attendees of the Paris event don’t need to spare any carbon whatsoever. After all, they are among the chosen few to tell the rest of the world what to do or not. The “new science” of how to save the earth does not apply to them, it’s just for the unwashed masses like you and me.
Basically, the do-gooders want you to “decarbonize” at all costs, everything, and most preferentially yourself. How else can you reduce the world population from 7 or 8 billion to fewer than one billion which Professor HJ Schellnhuber opines as necessary? He is the director of the Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung, (a German government-funded outlet for climate impact research, commonly known as PIK) who has all the answers. Oh, even the Pontiff appears to approve of them, why else would he recently have named Schellnhuber to the 400-year old institution of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS)?
Trillions are being spent on the completely wrong scenario, an independent veteran meteorologist implies. Instead of warming, we need to worry about the coming 125-year cool period, which has already begun.
The recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley, now President and Founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. Claims of warming have not been properly founded.
Dilley has forty-two years of professional experience in the meteorology and climatology and many publications. He was with NOAA for twenty years. Not only is the government wrong with its claims of a coming warming, Dilley accuses the federal government of fiddling with global temperature data with the aim of producing a false picture of what is going on.
In his must-see video presentation dubbed “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, he examines the many drivers and factors behind climate change and why we need to focus on the real problem of a coming cooling.