University of Oxford Researcher Discover Heaviest Element Known to Science


Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical morass. When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.

Paul’s Shipwreck | Bob Cornuke


In approximately 60 A.D., a ship carrying 276 men and a cargo of grain shipwrecked off the coast of Malta. Two of the passengers on that ship were the biblical writers Paul and Luke, who were on their way to Rome–Paul as a prisoner, and Luke as his attending physician and friend. Through Luke’s meticulously-detailed account of the voyage and shipwreck, as recorded in Acts chapter 27, we can today undertake a journey back in time to find the remains of that shipwreck. And, even more precisely, we can attempt to find the four anchors described in the Bible that were abandoned in the sea.

“When it was day, they did not recognize the land; but they observed a bay with a beach, onto which they planned to run the ship if possible. And they let go the anchors and left them in the sea, meanwhile loosing the rudder ropes; and they hoisted the mainsail to the wind and made for shore. But striking a place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground; and the prow stuck fast and remained immovable, but the stern was being broken up by the violence of the waves” (Acts 27:39-41).

For the past 500 years, tradition has held that the shipwreck of Paul occurred at St. Paul’s Bay on the northeast shore of Malta, a view held by the people of Malta today. But the biblical narrative and geography of the Mediterranean and Malta tell us that the site of the shipwreck must be located somewhere other than the traditional site, where no physical evidence has been found to-date, in spite of extensive research and exploration.

In order to solve this biblical mystery, we need to review the biblical narrative written by Luke. Luke was a trusted historian and medical professional, whose careful attention to detail will prove invaluable in our quest. Even though Luke uses nautical terms which were understood at the time but have vague meaning today, extensive research involving weather, ocean topography, landmarks, and maritime lore, gives us a well-defined path of the ship that the Apostle Paul was sailing on in the Mediterranean Sea.

Read the rest of this amazing story via Paul’s Shipwreck | Bob Cornuke.

Pachauri refuses to step down | Video | Reuters.com


Pachauri refuses to step down | Video | Reuters.com.

March 16 – Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), R K Pachauri, said he would not resign for making claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035, which he termed as “one mistake”.

Some climate researchers have criticized the IPCC in recent days for over-stating the speed of shrinking of Himalayan glaciers, whose seasonal thaw helps to supply water to many nations including India and China.

An ANI Report.

You Better Watch Out, You Better Watch Out … Richard Dawkins’ Coming to Town


WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE?
A plea for an open debate

Recently I have browsing and reading material looking at the matter of creation versus evolution, sometimes more accurately depicted as a discussion between science and religion. And now, with Richard Dawkins, a militant atheists as he once referred himself as, coming to town to do a lecture it is perhaps good to post some thoughts on how this discussion is actually nothing more a series of orchestrated attempts to polarize two camps that are actually perfectly aligned to work closely together. They are in my view complementary.

No Conclusive Evidence for Either Camp

I guess the big attraction of evolution theory for atheists is the premise that it no longer need a creator. Modern day evolutionists understand evolution to be “design out of chaos” without the aid of a mind or intelligence. In her TED talk Susan Blackmore outlines the simple beauty of this theory and how you don’t need a designer for evolution to work.In all fairness, while that may seem like the beauty of the theory it is important to understand that that is what it is A THEORY! I note that the fact that you don’t need a designer according to the theory  does not necessarily mean that there is no designer.

Although often presented as the poster boy for atheism, Darwin himself was not so sure, and in any event later in his life claimed that he was never an Atheist. In one of his letters in 1879, I found published on the web he writes:

Dear Sir

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.

… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041

In another letter, writing to the author of “the scientific creed”, he writes:

Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230

What has happened though over a long period of time is that the ultimate outcomes of evolution theory are being presented, understood or read as fact and that is where things go wrong. Conclusive evidence for creation out of random change is simply not available. Sure there is a lot of material that could indicate that but the same applies for the existence of a creator, in fact a creator as in God, the God of the Bible. Yet it is good to understand that in that sense atheism, when presented as a factual proposition is in fact just an alternative belief-system.

The other way around, creationists and the intelligent design movement, acting as the other camp, have obscured and unnecessarily polarized the discussion from their end. I do not think that anyone, especially Christians are helped by the critique brought forward by the creationists, ID proponents where they have used false arguments. As was clearly shown in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, the fundamental mistake made by these groups was that they used the argument that since the scientific evidence for the ultimate outcomes of evolution theory is not there, evolution does not exist.  I think that no one in his or her right mind will be able to deny that evolution is a fact for sure within species and a there is good evidence for a broader approach. At the same time this does not mean that therefore the ultimate consequence of creation out of nothing and by random chance is proven and also that there is conclusive scientific evidence for a common ancestor: two matters that seem to be at the center  of the discussions. Creationists and ID proponents all too often try to make us believe that there are issues with the WHETHER question of evolution as opposed to the HOW which is what the debate really should be about. The falsity of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence!


The other way around no one is helped by anyone asking for scientific proof for the existence of a God creator and for a living God that is present in our current day and time. The issue was addressed by Judge Jones decision in Kitzmiller v Dover. This case concerned the question of whether or not intelligent design should be taught as part of the science curriculum. Inevitably this leads to questions
like is intelligent design theory actually scientific or just the propagation of a religious concept. Judge
Jones, a highly religious man himself, came to the conclusion that ID is not science. According to the National Academy of Science:

  • Science is limited to empirical, observable, ultimately testable data.
  • There is a requirement of repeatability of process to get the data and if the theory derived from the data is correct similar outcomes should be the result.
  • Explanations that can’t be base on empirical data are not part of science.
  • The rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an essential attribute to science, by definition and convention.

Causes outside the natural world are a “science stopper.” So, there you go, from a formal strictly scientific point of view, a supernatural explanation is by definition and convention excluded. That does not mean however that such an explanation will ultimately be the one that makes the most sense, it just means that where Intelligent Design proponents try to argue with scientists, within the scientific realm, one will not get anywhere. Although admitted or known, Intelligent Design proponents seem to overlook this important fact or one step further, try to change the rules. This was clearly shown in the Kitzmiller v Dover case in the US:

In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world.

… While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.

… Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

Dan Dennett advises us that evolution could be seen as “design out of chaos. But what is chaos really? Personally I think that chaos is nothing more than a part of the divine creation of which we do not have a full grasp or understanding. Just as scientists may refer to religious people as non-rational because they use God as an explanation for what we do not understand, the same could be said about scientists that use chaos as an argument or explanation: chaos is nothing more than an implicit admission that “we do not know (yet) how certain matters exactly work. And that is how a religious person could look at chaos: part of God’s creation we have not been able to understand in naturalist or materialist terms.

Science and Religion as Complementary Disciplines

The great thing about science is in it’s limitation to looking at the natural and natural explanations only. That is the strength of science that we do not want to jeopardize. By this limitation we are continuously driven to find explanations i the natural world. Allowing the supernatural into the equation could easily lead to scientific slackness. The scientific drive could easily be taken away if we considered everything we cannot explain naturally as supernatural, why bother looking for answers if you can just back and call things supernatural and therefore not understandable. We would not have been where we are today, regardless of what value we put on that, i we had allowed the supernatural explanation into science.

However the non-scientific nature of Intelligent Design evidence does not say anything about the intrinsic value of the arguments brought forward by those that support the theory that God created the universe and all that is was and will be in it. Where it concerns evolution; by Message of 22 October 1996 of Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church made the announcement that evolution is compatible with a Christian Belief. Some fundamentalist Christians may not want to support this proposition but on average there is the Christian option of supporting evolution as a process without subscribing to “philosophical naturalism” which encompasses the view that everything has a natural cause an that organic life is nothing more than the result of unguided random forces. When evolution is turned into such an all encompassing theory we are no longer talking about science but about philosophy and one could even argue that such a theory is nothing more or less than an alternative belief system. It is good to understand that Dawkins and others have, like creationists and ID proponents a conflict model in which one camp excludes the other. While these conflicts attract the attention and are probably great for the sales  of books and for publicity reasons, it does not necessarily represent the large field in between these two polarities in which there is room to consider dialogue and even integration.

In the end it is personal

In my professional capacity I have often said: “it is the law that guides a case but it is the facts that make a case.” Another way of looking at it is that you will need to go where the evidence takes you and not try to have the evidence take you where you want to go.That however is not what is being presented in the media which needs to sell and therefore ignores this middle field to focus on the extremes of the continuum where the attention grabbing “battles” are fought with all the fundamentalist dirtiness that comes with that. There is a well known saying that “all is fair in love and war.” Somehow I think that has been taken to new levels up to a point where we may need to rethink this piece of common “wisdom.”

For me personally the body of evidence leads me to a God creator, in fact the God of the Bible and Christianity. The body of evidence is coming from a wide range of sources and are both of a direct and indirect nature. At the same time I am well aware that this same body of evidence could just as easy be used to disprove God and Christianity.  I guess there is a subjective element in weighing the evidence. At the same time that is a fact of life we will have to live with. What would be great if that is not used as a reason to draw swords but as a reason to reason, on the basis of mutual respect and a willingness to learn and develop. For fundamentalist Christians I suggest trying to open up to the world of science and do not judge but listen and learn, an for the militant atheist, do exactly the same. We all have each other a lot to offer. And on an individual level it is important to consider the body of evidence and not just that which you want to hear. All too often I hear people cry out from a position of ignorance make claims about the camp they emotionally do not want to be in, atheists and Christians alike.

While I do believe that weighing the evidence has a subjective element to it, I also believe that it is important to consider all the evidence and whatever happens do not judge those that come to different conclusions, especially if you are a Christian. For both the atheist and the Christian it is good to ask yourself:

CAN YOU CONVINCINGLY EXPLAIN WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE?

I know I can and I will so keep coming back if you want to hear my take on all of this. Did you check the evidence? I know I did an still do. I suggest you do the same. A good start is checking out the other posts in the religion and spirituality category or the renaissance and journey sub category. And keep in mind when you read any of the other posts in these categories that I was once out there on a mission to prove that religion was a fraud  and now writing from a Christian perspective. Science and experience got me to believe again.

Share

The Death of Global Warming – Walter Russell Mead’s Blog – The American Interest


The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.

Read the rest of the article here>>>

I guess the truth does set free.

American Thinker: Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud


By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit CRU should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming AGW theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.Of course, much will be made of Jones’s claim that the refusal to share raw temperature data was partially based on the fact that it “was not well enough organized.” And rightly so, as the very idea that the major datasets CRU released for use in vital anomaly and temperature reconstructions were based on data not “organized” enough to be made public reeks of fraudulent behavior.Then there are the statements Jones made regarding relatively recent temperature trends which truly boggle the mind. Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.Yet as incredible as those concessions truly are, they pale in comparison to this response to a question….

A series of revelations follows.

The conclusion of Marc Sheppard, environment editor at Environment Thinker:

Both Kyoto II and the domestic cap-and-tax scams appear to be dead for the moment.  But, while any such move would likely be tied up in the courts for years, EPA head Lisa Jackson’s threats to proceed with carbon regulation remain very much alive.

All of these schemes to control energy consumption while redistributing wealth rely on the same “scientific experts” to justify their price-tags — likely measured in trillions.  And since the Climategate scandal broke in November, we’ve confirmed that very many of them – at NASA, NOAA, and even the IPCC itself — have breached the standards of both science and ethics in order to advance their global warming political agenda.
But be that as it may — the level of deception perpetrated by Jones and his co-conspirators at the Climatic Research Unit will likely remain the yardstick by which climate fraud is measured for years to come….

…And always remembered as the beginning of the end of the international AGW hoax.

Read the rest of this article via American Thinker: Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud.

COMMENT

With this now well established I cannot help wondering what it will mean for the plans and policies in New Zealand. The evidence appears to indicate stronger and stronger that the whole AGW or man made global warming theory is based on manipulated figures scientific methodological blunders in in the basics and even scientific fraud.

Yet at the same time the same incorrect data and theories are at the basis of carbon credit an tax plans that politicians try to push us into. I cannot help to think that this is yet another example of how power corrupts and how we should not necessarily believe what we are told. What are your thoughts?

FALSE ALARM: Himalaya Gletchers


World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown,” declared the disturbing headline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) in The Sunday Times of London. As it turn out the 2007 prediction by IPCC  that many Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 was a huge stuff up based on sources not thoroughly vetted. The UN panel recently admitted (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf) its mistake.

Of Campaigning Reports and Popular Science Magazines

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have had to admit that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who at the time was chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now admits the comment was “speculative”. Even though the 10-year-old New Scientist report was the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas! This could well turn out to be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. Subsequently consider that the IPCC was set up to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Could it maybe turn out to be that the  IPCC (as some claim) was not so much established for the reasons outlined previously but actually for no other purpose than to provide legitimacy to otherwise political agendas in which climate change is no longer the cause but a means for other unrelated purposes?

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.” It’s a significant embarrassment for IPCC  which exists and is funded to provide quality scientific information on climate change and its implications.It all sounds like tales or gossip spreading through the neighborhood or the office, doesn’t it? Remember: these are big players, paid big bucks. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. In lauding the IPCC’s mobilization of scientific knowledge about climate change, the Nobel presenter said (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/presentation-2007),

Similar procedures to the IPCC’s should be considered as ways of approaching problems also in other fields.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Like the IPCC, the WWF, now has issued a major retraction of their 2005 warning about Himalayan glacier melting projections, saying they failed to double-check the primary source. The secondary source WWF cited was a 1999 New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html) magazine news article featuring an Indian scientist’s views that many Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 because of global warming.  According to the New York Times, in an email the scientist claimsto hve been “misquoted.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/earth/19climate.html?scp=1&sq=ipcc%20himalayan%20glaciers&st=cse). In a letter to Science Magazine Graham Cogley et all suggest (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5955/924) that “2035” may represent inaccurate copying of “2350” from another report. The Trent University (Ontario, Canada) geographer who helped uncover the mistake, points out that

“nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose.”

Another Stuff Up?

Is it me or is this all sounding like some sort of a big mess or stuff up. I can’t help but thinking what other stuff ups will surface in the coming period. IS this perhaps providing an argument to keep science and state separated similarly to church and state?  Himalayan glaciers supply fresh water to rivers that impact millions of people in South Asia. The IPCC’s 2007 glacier statement (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html) warned:

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world . and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

A prominent Indian glaciologist disputed the IPCC 2007 statement in a 2009 Indian government report. IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri shot back, calling the report “voodoo science” that lacked peer review. Talk about the pot  calling the kettle black. The IPCC glacier prediction itself lacked peer review, something central to IPCC’s mission (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm):

…to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change (emphasis reporter). … Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.

Politics v Science

The WWF report which the IPCC cited was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper.  The difference is important as because of its status the WWF report was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Would that not have been exactly what you would have expected from the IPCC, or is it maybe that if findings or reports support the underlying agendas of the funding agencies, that is enough of an excuse to be slack? Even though the exposure of this ill-founded prediction, the IPCC, is still concerned about glacier melting, but called the prediction “poorly substantiated” and said “clear and well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly” in this case. I take it that also applies to the reporting standards of the IPCC.

Kiwi Involvement: incompetence, ignorance, slackness?

In an article in The Briefing Room by Ian Wishart we read:

…it is hard to believe none of the many kiwis working on the report failed to read it and comprehend the massive schoolboy errors.

Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

Among five errors identified in their report was also an assertion that Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 square kilometers in area to just 100,000 square kilometers. In fact, glaciologists have confirmed the Himalayan glaciers only covered 33,000 square kilometers to begin with.

The New Zealanders listed as “reviewers” or “contributing authors” of Working Group 2 include glaciologist Jim Salinger of NIWA, David Wratt (NIWA’s top climate scientist) and Howard Larsen, principal analyst for New Zealand’s Ministry for the Environment and NZ’s representative to the IPCC. Salinger and Wratt were senior figures on the IPCC AR4 reports, including the one in question – and Wratt was a Vice Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report as well.

The full list of kiwis who may have failed to spot the errors (many below may not be glacier experts, but some will be and in my opinion should have known) and bring them to Pachauri’s attention are:

REVIEWERS of WGII report

Baxter, Kay, Ministry for the Environment

Becken, Susanne, Landcare Research

Becker, Julia, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences

Bell, Robert, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Collins, Eva, University of Waikato

Dymond, Stuart, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade

Fairbairn, Paul L, SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience

Gray, Warren, Ministry for the Environment

Hales, Simon, University of Otago

Hall, Alistair, HortResearch

Hannah, John, University of Otago

Hay, John, University of Waikato

Hughey, Ken, Lincoln University

Kenny, Gavin J, Earthwise Consulting Ltd

Kerr, Suzi, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Institute

King, Darren, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Larsen, Howard, Ministry for the Environment

Lawrence, Judy, Climate Change National Science Strategy Committee

Lawson, Wendy, University of Canterbury

Maclaren, Piers, Piers Maclaren & Associates Ltd

McKerchar, Alastair, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Mullan, A. Brett, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Plume, Helen, Ministry for the Environment

Porteous, Alan, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Power, Vera, Ministry for the Environment

Purdie, Jennifer, University of Waikato

Rys, Gerald, Ministry of Research, Science and Technology

Saggar, Surinder, Landcare Research

Stephens, Peter, Ministry for the Environment

Stroombergen, Adolf, Infometrics

Waugh, John Robert, Opus International Consultants Ltd.

Weaver, Sean, Victoria University of Wellington

Whitehead, David, Landcare Research

Wilson, Toni, Ministry for the Environment

Woodward, Alistair, University of Auckland

Wratt, David, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

CONTRIBUTORS TO WGII REPORT:

Tord Kjellstrom, University of Auckland

Darren King, NIWA

Gavin Henry, Earthwise Consulting

Guy Penny, NIWA

Jim Salinger, NIWA

Roderick Henderson, NIWA

Matt Dunn, NIWA

Blair Fitzharris, University of Otago

Simon Hales, University of Otago

Alistair Woodward, University of Auckland

John Hay, University of Waikato

Richard Warrick, University of Waikato

Susanne Becken, Landcare

In all fairness: many of the people listed may well be involved in policy no particular glacier expertise or at best with the depth of a pancake.  Some however will be experts and should have recognized the impossibility of the claims, all of them could have seen the methodological issues at hand. If we go from the premise that these people actually read the report, do we have to conclude here then that they failed to understand what they were actually reading? And if they did identify the errors: is there any evidence that they reported it, an if not why not? That does not give me much hope for the future. What faith can we have in our New Zealand scientists and moreover the IPCC.

What’s next?

This global warming campaign is getting more and more dubious or questionable. We have just come out of another controversy, variously dubbed “ClimateGate” and “SwiftHack, in which hacked emails suggest some scientists may have sought to conceal data that did not support their climate change views. And now this. All I can wonder is: WHAT’S NEXT?

Recently I advised that it is important you start taking your own responsibility (Climate Change Apologetics) in getting a clear view on what is actually happening when it comes to climate change. At Dierckx & Associates I published a post that may help you in doing your own research and also to hopefully avoid you making the same mistakes as our well respected experts on these matters.

Share