Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

FOGT reaches out to Trump

President-elect Trump has had trouble finding singers willing to perform at his inauguration. Possibly this is due to lack of suitable material, and we at OFGT are here to help.

Since the FOGT global warming song Stand by your scam has had its title appropriated for a musical about the Trump University, we have graciously penned a new offering:

When I'm 74 (with apologies to Lennon and Mccartney)

When I get older, still the same hair
Four long years from now
Will you be with me as a cheering crowd
Or hiding in bar-rooms laughing out loud

If you survive all the chaos I'll cause
Would you vote me back for more?
Will you still need me?
Will you still heed me?
When I'm 74.

You'll, be older too
And if you cast your vote
I could stay with you

I could be handy building a wall
When your jobs have gone
You could knit a sweater by the fireside
Once I ensure trade with China has died

Less tax for rich folks
Screwing the poor
Who could ask for more?
Will you still need me?
Will you still heed me?
When I'm 74.

Every summer we could rent a dasha on the Black sea coast
With my buddy Vlad
Make poor folks feel the pain
Show all those muslim folks the door
Ali and Hussein

Send me an e-mail, tweet me a line
Stating point of view
Indicate precisely how you mean to vote
Tell it to pollsters, send me a note

Give me your answer, call it out loud
Trump for evermore
Will you still need me?
Will you still heed me?
When I'm 74.

Andrew Nut
Religious Affairs Correspondent
Friends of Gin and Tonic/

Trump proves That Climate Change is not the Greatest Threat to Humanity

The widespread claim that human induced climate change is the greatest threat to humanity has been convincingly refudiated by US presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Trump's wide ranging presidential campaign has challenged such wasteful government policies such as leaving nuclear weapons idle and unused. He has expressed his admiration for the leadership of former KGB head, Vladimir Putin and vowed to start repealing regulations introduced in 2008 to prevent a repeat of the GFC. Through his comments in the course of his campaign, Trump has convincingly demonstrated that a Trump presidency is a far greater threat to humanity than any conceivable threat from climate change.

Moritz Lorenz
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing

NASA vs. Friend of Science

What warms the world according to NASA? Click here:


While FOS generally deny the existence of global warming, they also claim its existence is expressed by death stats. The African guy claims the opposite: no deaths caused by the cold at all and all weather-related deaths are due to heat.


Bob Carter (1942-2016): Timing of death outdoes Kim Philby

Bob Carter is dead. On January 19, 2016, the world lost Robert Merlin Carter, author of the widely-ignored Climate: The Counter-Consensus, co-author of the generally disregarded NIPCC Report and also co-author of the comic book graphic novel Taxing Air (1). Bob Carter stood out among Australian denialists by actually publishing scientific papers on climate (well really only one paper (2) and a correction that failed to address the issues identified in a comprehensive rebuttal (3)).

In February 2016 it was globally 1.35
oC warmer than the average February during the usual baseline period of 1951-1980, according to NASA data (4). This was the highest monthly anomaly on record. Read More...

The Lost Leader

Poster by Sophie Lewis, ANU. Used without permission.

(With apologies to Robert Browning)

After a brief shining moment he (1) left us,
Abandoned by those who were scared to lose votes.
Faint in denial their treason bereft us,
Left it to others to turn back the boats;
Those with the coal to sell doled him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allowed
Much of our taxes had gone to his service
Ties they were blue, Ms Credlin (2) was proud.

The real threat is global cooling

Re: “Carbon tax here for now; NDP to make major changes before Paris climate summit,” June 24.

If the Paris climate summit was actually about climate, it would be addressing the current global cooling, which has been in place since 2002, and is expected to worsen for the next few decades, plunging the world into a repeat of the Little Ice Age.

The entire 0.78 C of warming that the world has experienced since 1850 (the start of the HadCRUT4 global temperature data set) has been a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and not catastrophic global warming caused by CO
2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The carbon dioxide molecule has only one carbon atom, but two oxygen atoms, so by all rights, taxing CO
2 should be called an oxygen tax. So here we have the NDP putting in an “oxygen tax” to stop “global warming,” when the real threat is global cooling.

Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary

Derek Schweinsgruber says: If you commit suicide by funneling carbon monoxide (CO) into your car, then oxygen will have killed you...because there is one oxygen atom attached to the carbon. And if the current climate trend leads to a repeat of the Little Ice Age, then it leads to global the whole world was warmer than today during the Little Ice Age (Mann et al. 2009).

Letter to Honorable Minister Shannon Phillips

Dear honorable minister's office,

There is a group of retired engineers in Calgary, all male, who are active in climate change denial. They call themselves Friends of Science (FoS).

They are actually an ultra right-wing self-interest cult listed as a non-profit organization. Donations to them are tax deductible. I was wondering how I can help strip FoS supporters and FoS of their tax benefits. All they do is manipulate Alberta citizens with misinformation on climate change.

FoS therefore provide a disservice to Albertans and ridicule our province nationally and internationally. 

Dishonesty arising from self interest must not be rewarded financially.

I look forward to your actions.

Thanks and best regards,
Derek Schweinsgruber


Norm Kalmanovitch's Fuzzy Logic at the University of Calgary

Friends of Science scientific advisor Norm Kalmanovitch [our bio] spoke to Earth Science students and faculty in a packed Tom Oliver Lecture Theatre in the University of Calgary’s Earth Science Building on Friday, 6 March 2015.

In his 40 minute presentation
[abstract] Norm threw an indigestible amount of graphs and text slides at the audience which, together with his rambling, made it impossible to follow the argument in detail. Since it was not much different from his GeoCanada 2010 talk, you may want to check the scientific shortcomings revealed then.

Norm pulled all the usual
zombie arguments out of his bag that have been refuted over and over again. In the end, our bullshit detector overheated. For example:

He still maintains that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is negligible. We beg to
differ. And if you think that humans cannot influence climate, think of the ozone hole.

Norm’s world has been cooling since 2002 - climate change over. No science needed to refute this - just ask anybody who earns their money in the insurance industry.

He claimed that, during
the medieval warm period, the world was much warmer than today. Not true - the medieval warm period was restricted to northern Europe - while the world as a whole showed a cooling anomaly (Mann et al. 2009).


Norm further claimed that the IPCC renamed global warming to climate change in order cover up cooling. Not true - it was Frank Luntz, advisor to the George W. Bush re-relection campaign to hide Bush’s poor environmental record.

The hockey stick is fabricated (Norm got irate when somebody claimed otherwise). In reality, the hockey stick was
replicated in a number of proxy studies.

The earth has been cooling since 2002. In comparison, FoGT showed here that New Zealand has been cooling consistently since 1909 and how any trend can be interpreted as a cooling trend - always.

Norm also tried to make us believe that climate science has not evolved since the early 1980s. In reality, he harped on outdated studies while not bothering updating his knowledge in a science library.

He ‘algored’ the audience, diagnostic for a far right-wing attitude. ‘Algore’ is an activist and the laws of physics do not rely on him. He also ‘
michaelmanned’ us. The argument should be ad rem and not ad hominem.

Norm’s talk was followed by a 70 min animated and very entertaining discussion. In the end, he did himself no favour by telling a science crowd that science is generally rigged (and must have been rigged globally for decades in order to produce a broad internally consistent body of science that is inconsistent with his calculations).

If you missed the event, you will soon be able to download the audio recording here in two mp3 files:

1. Norm’s presentation with question period 1 starting at 42:30
2. Question period 2
Stay tuned - we are presently processing the soundfiles!

All 37 FoGT contributors were in the audience. We enjoyed ourselves and thank the Earth Science Department for such great entertainment at times when there is little else to laugh about.



Marginalised TV botanist goes native - embraces photosynthesis

The term going native entered the English language through the colonial empire. As with empires throughout history, this included a large amount of screwing of the colonised by the colonisers. Going native referred to the aberant behaviour of those who went the further step of co-habiting with the women that they were screwing, or even going as far as to marry them.

In the political parlance of the Westminster system, going native refers to the behaviour of a minister who puts the interests of his department above the interests of the government. Of course interests of the department really means interests of the senior bureaucrats in the department and this of course means a bigger department, with greater power and seniority for the aforesaid senior bureaucrats.

Going native also provided the plot of the film Avatar.

However, going native seems to have taken on a whole new with a low-key announcement in Bob Carter's widely ignored book
Taxing Air. [Not to be confused with Carter's widely ignored Climate CounterConsensus or the widely ignored Idso/Carter/Singer NIPCC report.] In Taxing Air David Bellamy notes that Australia's carbon tax is a tax on the air that we breathe [our emphasis].

In that one word
we can be charted the course of Bellamy's journey. It explains his change of views from The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere of planet Earth, of this there is no doubt. Earth's temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect, now a subject of international concern. The greenhouse effect may melt the glaciers and ice caps of the world causing the sea to rise and flood many of our great cities and much of our best farmland. in 1989, to vocal opposition to efforts constrain CO2. Because of course, it is not humans who breathe in carbon dioxide. It is Bellamy's beloved plants that breathe in carbon dioxide and his own words indicate that he has now decided to join them. Many biologists acquire great empathy. of the objects of their studies, but re-directing one's whole metabolism is a step that few if any others have taken.

This very personal journey explains why Bellamy has not become an advisor to Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation. For the upper classes represented in the GWPF, enhanced autoeroticism is a more traditional reason for seeking higher CO2 (see
Is Monckton a Wankker and why It Matters). Apparently Bellamy is no longer even wanted at the NZ Climate Science Coalition. He seems to have returned to his botanical roots - possibly literally.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ

Crazy Billboards



Humiliating Easter Snub for Cardinal Pell

easter - Google Search
Traditionally Easter has been a time of joy for Catholics to reflect on how they have re-invented pagan superstitions to mark the return of the Sun at the spring equinox. From simple pleasures such a dancing naked around standing stones, the catholic church has built a world-wide empire that has dominated western thought, preserved learning through the dark ages [well actually it was mostly the arabs, but why let truth get in the way of a good story] and in the face of modern disdain for such practices, preserved ancient traditions of pedophilia.

In a shocking lack of respect for this holy time, Australia's cardinal George George Pell has been snubbed by social commentator Clive Hamilton, with the release of Hamilton's updated version of the
Dirty Dozen "Australia's biggest climate foes" who have done most to frustrate action on climate change. Cardinal Pell did not make the list.

In order to really twist the knife, Hamilton's list was released in two parts, with part 1 listing Chris Mitchell, Tony Abbott, Ian McNamara, Gina Rinehart, Innes Willox, Ian Plimer. Thus for a day or two, although Pell and his supporters were disappointed at not placing in the
top six, they could live with the expectation that he might still make the top twelve. Alas, these hopes were dashed with the release of part two which listed Martin Ferguson, Greg Hunt, Mitch Hooke, Danny Price, Maurice Newman and Sam Walsh.

Here at Friends of Gin and Tonic we are concerned about our own role in this. We feel that our discussion of Pell
First They Screw Children Then They Screw Their Future may have wrongly created the impression that Pell's lying about climate change was merely practice for appearing at the Royal Commission into sexual abuse of children. If it is our speculation that has led to Hamilton's neglect of George Pell's role, then we at Friends of Gin and Tonic are truly sorry.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.

Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ

Lord Monckton warns a putrid arm of the international political and environmental-extremist academic cabal

To: Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications.

Dear Mr. Rasmussen,

Closure and reopening of the learned journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

My kind friend Professor Niklas Mörner of Stockholm, who in close to 50 years has published approaching 600 papers in the reviewed and general scientific literature, is an internationally-renowned expert on sea level and is one of the most gifted instructors of students I have ever had the pleasure to work with, has copied me in on your sad and, indeed, bizarre decision to bring to an end the excellent learned journal Pattern Recognition in Physics, less than a year after its first publication in March 2013.

Professor Mörner, who is usually the most genial and even-tempered of scientists, is plainly furious not so much at your decision to axe this promising journal, which was already galloping towards the forward frontiers of research in the physical sciences, as at the extraordinary reason you have given for your decision.

The Professor, who is highly active in the worldwide scientific community, attended the Fifth Space Climate Conference in Oulu in June 2013 and realized that the hypothesis that the relative positions of the major planets of the solar system influence solar activity in accordance with a detectable pattern was now ready to be elevated to a theory. In his own specialism, sea-level rise, the question was of more than purely academic significance, since the influence of the major planets not only influences the Sun but causes perceptible variations in the period of the Earth’s rotation (i.e. the length of the day) and hence, via the Coriolis force over time, in global sea level.

Accordingly, Professor Mörner, on learning that the hypothesis about the connection between variations in the positions of the major planets and in solar activity was gaining recognition, realized that the topic was an ideal instance of pattern recognition in astrophysics. He proposed to the editor of the new Copernicus journal Pattern Recognition in Physics that a special issue should be devoted to the subject so that a collection of papers could examine the issue from every angle and, as the ancient Chinese philosophers used to say, "in the round". The editor, understandably, leapt at the opportunity with expressions of delight, and invited Professor Mörner to edit the special issue. No one more competent or suitable guest editor could have been chosen.

The Guardian of the Evidence

UK Floods

Don't call C02 pollution

Re: "B.C. walks a tightrope; LNG at odds with plans for environment," Nov. 12.

It is now officially confirmed that there has been zero net global warming since 1997, so it is rather peculiar for anyone to claim that greenhouse gas emissions are of any concern. The article uses the term "meeting its ambitious 2007 greenhouse gas pollution reduction targets," but CO2 is not in any way toxic at the current 393.82 ppmv level (2012) because it is perfectly safe, even at a 5,000 ppmv level of exposure.

So why is this called pollution when humans actually breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 40,000 ppmv?

For that matter, the IPCC defines a "greenhouse gas" as an atmospheric gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect, but since the greenhouse effect decreased from 35.56 C in 1980 to 35.42 C today, the 70.9 per cent increase in CO2 emissions since 1980 did not in any way enhance the greenhouse effect; so according to the IPCC definition, CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas! The ludicrous claims of GHG emissions causing catastrophic global warming emanate from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, but the record shows that global warming had already ended by December 1997, when world leaders met at the IPCC climate summit in Kyoto, Japan, and signed on to this idiotic accord.

With the Earth now cooling for over a decade in spite of increasing CO2 emissions, the media needs to exit the fantasy world of environmentalists' silly global warming dogma and instead support measures like this LNG plant to address the "real world" threat posed by global cooling.

Norm Kalmanovitch

Here more
nonsense by Norm!

Keep Playing Dirty

PEOPLE claim Australia is ''ahead of the game'' in cleaning up sport. That doesn't wash. One of the most successful arguments against taxing carbon is that we must not get ahead of the game. And just as all right-thinking Australians believe we should do nothing to make fossil fuels dearer for Australian businesses, so they will believe we should do nothing to make it harder for our athletes to get drugs and continue to win.

We must insist that nothing be done to clean up sport in Australia that is not also being done in every other country. We must ensure that athletes from Fourth World countries that have never won so much as an Olympic bronze are not enabled to steal our gold medals because we have put our athletes in a politically correct straitjacket.

What's the use of cleaning up your economy or your sport while everyone else is playing dirty? If we can live with sitting on our hands and doing bugger-all to secure the future of life on Earth as we know it, surely we can cope with doing bugger-all to save sport in Australia as we know it.

Colin Smith, St Kilda

Beyond the Angry Summer

In the (southern) summer of 2012-3, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology had to introduce a new colour to their temperature maps as record-breaking temperatures occurred across most of the continent. The now disbanded Climate Commission called it The Angry Summer.

With seasonal outlooks indicating a hot summer for 2013-4, the search is on for a new name.
Thus one might have:
The Angrier Summer if temperatures are a a bit higher The Not-Quite-As-Angry Summer if temperatures come in a bit lower, the problem being that one has to wait until the end of summer to know which to use; The Furious Summer The Enraged Summer

A more creative approach would be to follow the Aktion Wetterpate (Adopt-a-Vortex)” approach of naming weather systems after people, so that we could have:
The "Tony Abbott punching the wall" Summer The "Kevin Rudd Abusing a Flight Attendant" Summer or, for extreme conditions"
The "Belinda Neal in Iguana Joe's Restaurant" Summer.

However, given the mood of the Australian electorate, a more contemporary label would be:
The "I'm so pissed off with the major parties that I'm going to fill the senate with one-issue cranks" Summer


Since the Abbott government abolished the Climate Commission, it has re-invented itself as the Climate Council, funded by donations. The funding came from a persuasive campaign urging donations which would support the provision of independent information about climate and piss off Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ

Witches protest Comparison with Sophie Mirabella

After centuries of burning by catholics, hanging by puritans, denigration in fairy tales and being used to denigrate female politicians, the world's witches have had enough. The crunch came in Australia when, on her electoral defeat, denialist MP Sophie Mirabella found herself the target of the "Ditch the Witch" slogan that she and now-PM Tony Abbott had used against Australian PM Julia Gillard.

In fronting at "Ditch the Witch" rallies, Mr Abbott drew on the proud misogynist traditions of his church. Not only did the catholic church execute many thousands of women for witchcraft, but they also wrote the definitive book,
Malleus Maleficarum, on the subject. This inspired later generations of protestants, although often, as in New England, protestants substituted hanging for burning. Execution of accused witches continues to this day in PNG, often using the traditional catholic method of burning to death.

It is a measure of the strength of Mr Abbott's dedication to the traditions of his church that, rather than be apologetic for his church's lethal misogyny (a rather unlikely event) or simply pass by in embarassed silence, Mr Abbott embraced the "witch" meme and referred to its proponents as "fine Australians".

Of course Ms. Gillard is not the first female politician to be described as a witch. Most notably Margaret Thatcher's death was marked by wide-spread downloading of Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". In a lapse from its normal high journalistic standards, even Friends of Gin and Tonic embraced the
Ding Dong campaign.

The reality is that the death of baroness Thatcher should have been an occasion for mourning. Most obviously, it meant that the opportunity for her the hear the insults had been lost forever. Secondly, for those who believe that ex-PM Thatcher should be punished, the most appropriate punishment was to live on, old and frail, to contemplate the limitations of her ideology of the self-sufficient individual. Finally, the death of baroness Thatcher simplifies the hi-jacking of her legacy by people who are much nastier. Because if you think that Margaret Thatcher was the ultimate embodiment of conservative evil, then you simply haven't been paying attention over the last 20 years.

Mr Abbott has stated that, as PM, he won't be imposing his own religious views on national policy. [The
greenhouse denial religion is emerging as an exception]. This means that the catholic tradition of witch burning is unlikely to be revived in Australia. Indeed the increasingly long fire seasons in Australia [which, under the new goverment, have absolutely nothing to do with climate change] would confine witch-burning to times that would be in unacceptable competition with the football season.

Prior to becoming the recipient of the "ditch the witch" derision, Ms Mirabella had already been described as the nastiest person in the Australian Parliament.

Ms Mirabella's wikipedia entry notes that In 1995, she began a live-in relationship with Colin Howard, then dean of law at Melbourne University, who was forty years her senior. The relationship ended in 2001, although they remained close until his death in 2011. Her relationship with Howard was later the subject of a bitter dispute between Mirabella and Howard's adult children. Mirabella was granted power of attorney over Howard's estate and made herself the sole beneficiary. In protesting against having witches compared to Ms Mirabella, a spokes-witch noted that there are plenty of words in the English language to describe such a person without dragging witches into the lexicon of insults.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.
Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ

The End of Breaking Bad


The final nail in the coffin of the denial of climate change denial denial. The zombies of the Friends of Science finally come to rest.

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling


Obama launched his latest Climate Change initiative – he is banning cows in America!

President Obama and his administration are taking aggressive steps to bypass Congress in an effort to stop Climate Change – which they feel is the biggest problem facing mankind today.

A new study out of Harvard has confirmed that cows are the primary cause of methane gas in the atmosphere and that gas is the primary cause of global warming, which causes Climate Change.  ”If we get rid of cows, we can save the planet.  Cows and oil – the deadly duo,” said one White House insider.

It’s true. Cow farts and burps contain huge amounts of methane, this is because of their slow digestive systems. Not only cows, even farts and burps released by other animals can cause global warming.

Cow farts are made up of several gases. One among them is methane (CH4), a gas that is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Methane when present in small amounts in the environment helps in trapping warm air around the planet. However, large amounts of methane can lead to thickness of the green house gas layer in the air which is not a very good thing.

Scientists say that on an average a dairy cow releases about 1,100 to 2,000 liters of methane gas in the form of farts that causes pollution. Therefore in that case, the pollution produced by a car in a day is about one-tenth of that produced by cow farts.

The Administration strongly feels that we should ban cows in America as a sign to the rest of the world.  ”Cows kill the atmosphere and the atmosphere destroys the planet.  Therefore, cows destroy the planet.  They must all die,” said a White House insider.

One White House advisor told WWN that President Obama is thinking about declaring November 1st a national “cow-banning” day.  ”The President wants to have a huge barbecue on November 1st and have the country eat as many cows as possible,” said a White House insider.

What about milk?  ”The President hates milk.  He never drinks it.  So, he figures what’s good for him is good for the country,” said a top  White House advisor.

If you love cows… you better get your moo on and head down to Washington to stop the cow ban!


Existence is Useless

(apologies to the Vogon guard).

The late great Canadian-born economist J. K. Galbraith once described the efforts of various academic colleagues for promoting their academic standing. This consisted of passionate description of their earth-shattering books. The essential aspect was the glowing description. Often the production of an actual book was found to be superfluous and was relegated to some ill-defined future.

In the non-core science of climate change, it seems that this time-saving innovation has finally reached Australia.

Australia's non-core scientists had long ago embraced the productivity gains achieved by dispensing with the long and tedious process involved in peer review. Now it seems that they have gone the extra step and are dispensing with the need for actually writing books and papers, and focusing their efforts on getting glowing reviews for non-existent or unavailable works.

A tentative first step was taken by then-professor Murry Salby with his widely acclaimed
non-existent paper on carbon dioxide. This was described by Salby as the paper that would cause the IPCC to totally reverse their opinions about the causes of climate change. Back in August 2012 the rapturous review by Jo Nova revealed that the paper had been accepted for publication and would appear in six weeks. After almost a year there is still no paper, but reports in The Australian indicate the paper has been expanded into a non-existent book.

Late in 2012, political cartoonist John Spooner announced that he was joining several non-core scientists in producing a new book on climate, due to appear in a few months. Drawing on his own expertise, this would be in the form of a graphic novel - the genre formerly known as comic books.

It is now time for the praise. The
comic book Taxing Air is by John Spooner and Bob Carter, with non-core scientists Bill Kininmonth, Stewart Franks and an economist. Combining Carter, Kininmonth and Franks brings together much of the team who acted as non-core scientific advisers to Senator Family First's Fraudulent Fuckwit Fielding. Again this book, due in bookshops on July 1, has received glowing accounts from Jo Nova and is reviewed in Quadrant but seems somewhat unknown to actual booksellers.

This virtual state [the IT industry refers to vaporware, Ed] is even more transient than Carter's previous book which was being remaindered by
Amazon before Carter had been able to launch it in Australia.

As always, Australian academia has been slow to adjust to new innovations. Former-professors Salby and Carter are now ex-professors as their
former universities have noted their underachievement as far as actual work goes, even if other excuses are being circulated.



We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.

In ex-professor Carter's case, the government criteria for assessing research output don't even have a classification for
comic books graphic novels.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz.

Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing,
University of Narbethong,
West Island Campus, NZ

Australia's first bloke outed as a hairdresser - brings down prime minister

Tim Mathieson, partner of Australian (now former) Prime Minister Julia Gillard (and thus Australia's "first bloke") has been outed as being a hairdresser. In the lead-up to the (scheduled) September election, this is seen as a crude attempt to appeal to religious conservatives who follow the injunctions in Leviticus that Ch 19 v27 Ye shalt not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of they beard, Ch 21 v5 They shall not make any baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

In each case, emphasising the importance of avoiding haircuts, these chapters immediately follow a chapter of prescriptions against male homosexuality as well as sex with animals, sisters-in-law, uncles' wives or threesomes with a mother and daughter. [Sex with school children under your care is
not precluded in Leviticus.]

The attack on Mr Mathieson, by intermittent greenhouse denier Howard Sattler was a classic feint and strike. Mr Sattler opened with the question as to whether Mr Mathieson was gay. While the PM gasped incredulously, Mr Sattler went for the kill:
he must be gay: he's a hairdresser.

Mr Sattler was judged as expendable to the greenhouse denial cause (he seems to have only hosted Lord Monckton once on his radio program) and was sacked by his employers in a desperate attempt to distinguish themselves from Mr Murdoch's news outlets. Indeed he had harmed denialist tactics by striking too early, rather than keeping the damning revelation for closer to the election. Instead of being used by PM Gillard's enemies in the COALition, it was used by her enemies in her own party. The Murdoch greenhouse-denying columnist Piers Ackerman tried to back-track by trying to re-divert discussion to Mr. Mathieson's sexual orientation, but it was too late and events had to run their course.

Rumours of Mr Mathieson's hairdressing proclivities had circulated for years, and even been reported in leading Canadian news outlets such as
Friends of Gin and Tonic. But Mr Sattler's revelation in his Perth Drive-time radio show brought the matter into the open.

The "feint and strike" approach had been tried directly on Prime Minister Gillard. In the last twelve months, years of misogynist attacks finally made way to the what was hoped to be the killer blow: Ms Gillard is a lawyer, but this proved insufficient.

In the end, the outing of Mr Mathieson as a hairdresser was the final straw. Within weeks of Mr Sattler's outing of her partner, Ms Gillard was deposed as Prime Minister.

Andrew Nut
Religious affairs correspondent
Waikikamukau, West Island, NZ.

First they screw children, then they screw their future

A decade of lying about climate change provided Australia's cardinal George Pell with the experience that he needed in order to front the Victorian state parliamentary inquiry into sexual abuse of children.

May had been a bad month for the Roman Catholic Church in Australia. In the state of NSW, there were claims of interference with police investigations of pedophile priests. However the real action took place in the state of Victoria (where infiltration of the police was identified as motorcycle gangs rather than catholics, although some commentators noted the similarities). There, the focus was on the parliamentary inquiry into sexual abuse of children.

Among the evidence heard was:
  • sustained abuse by a group of pedophile priests at St Aloyisus school in Ballarat;
  • that on the departure of one priest, the church had helped him set up trust funds, to keep his payout beyond the reach of legal action by his victims;
  • that the church had paid a million dollars for the defense of one priest who had already been convicted of other offences against children. (The church was quick to point out that the reason that the amount was so high was because it included the 10% goods and services tax.)
  • When Melbourne Archbishop Hart was asked about the decades of delay in being open rather than covering up, he smilingly replied "better late than never" - few others saw the humour.
In earlier commentary, church sources had felt that the reasons that priests tended to focus their sexual predation on children and/or males was that this didn't really count as sex and so was not a violation of the vows of celibacy. This sort of distinction is in line with earlier church doctrine such as avoiding meat-eating during Lent by dining on fetal cattle, or, in handing over convicted heretics, recommending that punishment by secular authorities avoid bloodshed (by burning at the stake).

Then on Monday, into this mess strode George Pell.

Pell had already been critical of the way in which these inquiries and allegations had focused on the catholic church. Indeed as Joseph Ratzinger had said, while he was pope (and thus infallible), sexual abuse of children is as evil as ordaining women. Thus, while sexual abuse of children is focused on the catholic church, protestant denominations have a virtual monopoly on ordination of women. In spite of Pell's complaints about unfairness, Australia has multiple inquiries into sexual abuse of children, and none at all into the ordination of women. (Opposition leader Tony Abbott has remained silent on whether he would take his catholic faith literally and initiate such an inquiry if he is elected as prime minister next September).

Cardinal Pell is seen as a traditionalist. One of the catholic traditions that he upholds most strongly is that of denying science until a century or two after the rest of the world has accepted it. Thus it was in 1992 that the inquisition's judgment against Galileo was overturned. In the case of evolution, it only took about a century or so for the church to give grudging and partial acceptance.
In the days leading up to his testimony, Cardinal Pell had been urged by the state premier to tell the truth. This was perhaps unnecessary, even apart from the spectacle of a politician telling a church leader to be truthful. In recent weeks the cardinal had taken the opportunity to join fellow greenhouse deniers in the favoured few who received first hand moral training as part of the live audience for
a lecture on morality by Mr Rupert Murdoch.

As anticipated, cardinal Pell's testimony did acknowledge that the cover-up was a failing of individuals. However, as was also anticipated, Pell concentrated on blaming people who were dead. In his evidence, cardinal Pell modestly disavowed the description of `sociopathic lack of empathy', from victims' parents, on the basis that 20 minutes was too short a time to make such a judgment. (Of course `sociopathic lack of empathy' has long been a tradition of the Inquisition (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith) where Pell worked in the Vatican). However, in spite of this modesty, Pell did reveal his hidden empathy, in describing how he has accompanied one of the pedophile priests to court.

Such is the stuff of a Prince of the Church.

Andrew Nut
Religious affairs correspondent,
Waikikamukau, NZ

Green Idiocy

Re: "To eat or heat? That's the EU's question," Licia Corbella, Opinion, May 15.

Columns like Licia Corbella's, which expose shortcomings of green ideology, are typically met by a flurry of letters condemning presentations contrary to what is essentially green idiocy.

They use ad hominem attacks on Benny Peiser as being associated with the climate change deniers, Friends of Science, and Corbella as being a sympathizer of deniers.

Before accepting this vitriolic rebuttal to what Peiser stated and what Corbella wrote, consider just this one statement within the piece: "Indeed, for the past 16 years, temperatures have not spiked but remained stable. The Earth's temperature has only risen 0.8 C in 150 years, explained Peiser."

The 1997 Kyoto accord on which all this foolish emissions reductions is based, has been around for less than 16 years, so it was initiated after global warming had already ended. With the Earth's temperature increasing by only 0.8 C in the past 150 years, there is very little likelihood that the Earth will warm by an additional 1.2 C any time soon to meet the "2 C criteria for action" agreed to at the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. In the 150 years which produced just 0.8 C of warming, global CO2 emissions increased from under 0.5 GT (billion metric tonnes) to over 35 GT today. So, even if there is
validity to the conjecture that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, 0.8 C in 150 years is not sufficient reason to warrant this wholesale attack on the economy and humanity.

Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary


Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming

Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).

Calgary, Alberta, Canada (PRWEB) May 21, 2013

Only 65 papers of the 12,000 in the Cook study explicitly support the view that human activity is more than 50% responsible for the global warming. The false claim of 97% consensus is a manipulation of data which fuels cult-like hysteria, not scientific inquiry,” says Len Maier, President of Friends of Science.

In October 2012 the
UK Met Weather office reported that global warming stopped 16 years ago.

The recent Cook et al paper reviewed abstracts of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.
Maier and colleagues at Friends of Science reject the Obama tweet related to the Cook study - “climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.”

“Climate change is real, normal, and mostly caused by the sun’s magnetic flux,” says Maier.
Friends of Science have studied climate science for over a decade. Based on the evidence, they conclude that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not human activity or carbon dioxide (CO2).

“Certainly there’s no consensus on any ‘catastrophic’ element or ‘danger’ to quote Obama’s tweet,” says Maier. “That’s just fear mongering.”

“Whether scientists agree that human activity affects climate in some ways is not relevant,” adds Ken Gregory, director of Friends of Science.

Human activities that affect climate are many: industrial farming, urban development, black soot – but none of these are about CO2 emissions.

Gregory goes on: “What portion of the warming up to 2001 was caused by human activity, what part was natural? What part was caused by urban warming and black soot aerosols?"

“The study does not address any of these,” he says.

Gregory points out that scientists can agree on the evidence that temperatures had warmed until 2001; but since then global warming has stopped.

"Most global temperature datasets show a slight decline in temperatures since 2001,” he says. “Many scientists who study solar influences on climate are forecasting a Little Ice Age cooling based on historic solar cycle patterns."
“In our view there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the solar-magnetic theory,” says Gregory, referring to the massive fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic fields that directly impact earth's climate.

Gregory points to a study like that of Usoskin et al (2005) “Solar Activity Over the Last 1150 years: does it Correlate with Climate?”

"You’d think 1150 years of evidence of the sun driving climate change would have more credibility than climate science computer models,” says Gregory. “The computer models failed to predict the global cooling from 1945 to 1975, or the cooling since 2001."

Gregory shows that the Cook study outright falsified scientists’ position based on Cook’s own rating. One astrophysical paper by
Nir Shaviv (2005) that studied the sun and cosmic rays was rated as "explicitly endorsing" the AGW theory by Cook et al. In fact Shaviv does not endorse the so-called ‘consensus’ science. His paper shows that about 60% of 20th century warming was caused by the sun.

Shaviv’s commentary “
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?” is popular with the public.    

Gregory points to another paper by
Scafetta and West (2006) concerning solar activity , was rated in the Cook study as presenting an "explicit endorsement >50% warming caused by man". In reality, the abstract states, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming." Cook incorrectly categorized this paper as agreeing with the AGW theory, when the Scafetta and West see the solar effects on climate as more significant.

“The role of science is to edify, not terrify people,” says Maier. “People feel relief and breathe easy when they learn that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not CO2. Global warming stopped almost 2 decades ago.”

About Friends of Science

Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired and active earth and atmospheric scientists. Membership is open to the public and available on-line.

Contact: Friends of Science P.O. Box 23167, Connaught P.O. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2S 3B1 Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org

Global Cooling Threatens Earth


Shocked scientists told reporters that the Earth is cooling at a dramatic and alarming rate.

Global warming  has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, but scientists now say that the world is not warming, but instead is becoming cooler – by the day!

According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is decreasing significantly, so the average yearly temperature will decline at a rapid rate.

Scientists from Britain and the US are forecasting a 5-10 degree (Fahrenheit) drop in global temperaturs – over the next five years!

“This is catastrophic for the planet,” said Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling.   “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet.  The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100.”

Scientists predict that most major cities that are on the coast, will be frozen over in the next thirty years.  ”There’s nothing we can do to stop it. The sun is just not as powerful as it used to be,” said Dr. Malley.

Experts say that the Arctic ice is getting thicker by the day.  ”Even places like Jamaica will have an average daily temperature of only 40 degrees (Fahrenheit) within five years.”

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle.  Scientist predict that this “cold spell” will last 200-250 years and by that time, all life on earth will have been extinguished.

“We are in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity won’t end until about 2275.”

Bundle up!!


Government should 'grow up' on Climate Change, Scientist says

A dozen prominent scientists write letter to (Canadian) Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver

A group of 12 prominent Canadian climate scientists called out the federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver on his support for the expansion of oil infrastructure in a letter released today.

The scientists wrote that building pipelines and developing fossil fuel production delays the transition to an economy that relies less on oil and gas.

The scientists urged Oliver to move away from the high-carbon approach that will lead to climate warming of more than 2 C.

"If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves into a high-carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come," wrote the group that includes Mark Jaccard of B.C.'s Simon Fraser University, Gordon McBean of the Centre for Environment and Sustainability at Western University in London, Ont., and David Keith, a Canadian who is teaching public policy and engineering at Harvard University.

The group went on to say that if Canada wants to avoid dangerous climate change it "will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy."

"I'm not arguing necessarily for totally closing down the tarsands. I just think they ought to be more responsibly developed and in a way that is compatible with properly addressing climate change," said John Stone, one of the signatories and a geography and environment professor at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Stone said the country needs to have a proper discussion about energy policy and the way forward.

Need for balance

Keith was blunt in his assessment of the Canadian government's stand on climate change and resource development. He wants the government to "grow up" and represent the two important but very different needs of the country.

"They need to balance the long-term environmental risks and the benefits to Canadians ... not using the atmosphere as a waste dump for carbon. And they need to balance that against desire in current laws, for companies to export oil," Keith told CBC News.

"Those are two different goals. They are somewhat contradictory but an adult government needs do to that in a serious way. And I don't hear it."

Oliver is travelling through Europe this week as part of a campaign to promote the country's resources and to convince the European Union not to discriminate against Canadian oil by labelling it dirtier than other fuel.

Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Oliver, said it's unrealistic to think the world can move off oil.

"Cutting off oil production would create great economic hardship, especially for the poorest nations who already suffer from an energy deficit," McCluskey said. "Indeed, one and half billion people are now without electricity. We have an obligation to responsibly develop our resources, protect the environment, create economic growth for Canadians and share our energy with the world."

Letter to Joe Oliver


The Morality of Markets

rupert murdoch
Rupert Murdoch's address to the Institute of Public Affairs' 70th anniversary dinner in Melbourne, April 4

ROD Kemp, John Roskam, Tony Abbott, friends of the Institute of Public Affairs, and fellow champions of the free market: Let's be clear about our purpose this evening. We are not here to mark an anniversary that just commemorates the past. We are here to champion a vision that speaks to the future. That vision remains as vital today as when the IPA was founded back in 1943.

The Australians who came together that decisive year were concerned about the drift to socialism they thought might prove a legacy of the war. My father, I am proud to say, was among these men. They set up the IPA to help write a different future for this country. What they wanted was simple: an Australia where men and women would rise in society not because they were born into privilege - but because they earned it with their hard work, their thrift, and their enterprise.

Or as Friends of G and T put it in Excise Australia Fair

Our forebears formed the IPA
To rail against the laws
That slow the rate that riches flow
Into our gaping maws.

As Mr Murdoch noted, his father was one of those founding forebears

As you have pursued this vision over the years, you have had many victories. In your early years, you helped defeat the postwar bid to nationalise Australian banks - often fighting the banks as much as the government! You were an early advocate of the great reforms - pushed by Labor and Liberal governments alike - to open up Australia by deregulating, privatising, reducing tariffs and floating the dollar. And today you are leading the fight for freedom of speech in Australia.

So on this 70th anniversary I say to you: Your victories have truly been victories for the Australian people. And it is the great hope of everyone in this room that you will continue the vital work that will make Australia a freer ... more competitive ... more hopeful ... and more successful society. Success is not something we can take for granted. Success must be fought for. Success most be won.

But, instead of hearing about new initiatives that would make Australia more competitive and open up new opportunities for the Australian people, we hear more of the class warfare rhetoric that has proved so toxic and so damaging for older nations. And, here is something else we are not hearing about:
we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free. The cold, commercial word "market" disguises its human character - a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires. I saw that up close last week in China, where the digital marketplace has become a launch pad for individual opportunities unimaginable to the Chinese of 20 years ago. Typically, those of us who believe in free markets make our arguments by extolling the market’s economic superiority. But I believe we need to do something very different from what we are used to. We need to defend the market on precisely the grounds that its critics attack it: on justice and fairness. Yes, the morality of free markets. Read More...

FoS Luncheon with Benny Peiser


Lord Monckton Writes Again

vuwPages from vuw