On Uri Geller the science is settled

Uri Geller said he could bend spoons with the power of his mind, and did so in front of television audiences around the world. A couple of years ago he was inducted into the Magicians Hall of Fame, but he has never admitted that it was all a magic trick. But so what, since all kinds of scientists have been willing to state that Geller really did bend those spoons with the power of his mind. Here are a couple of examples.

First this: ‘There was no way I could explain it’: the CIA scientist convinced by Uri Geller’s psychic powers. The last two paras:

How does Dr Green feel when he hears magicians and sceptical fellow scientists say all such things relating to Uri Geller and others are simple magicians’ tricks and of no scientific interest?

“The fact of the matter is that that isn’t correct. Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does, and the films of what he does, recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magicians’ tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery – has any value. It does not.”

And then there’s this: CIA files: Uri Geller has real powers.

According to the papers, scientists from Stanford University tested Israeli mentalist Uri Geller in 1973. Geller was already famous all over the world by this point.

The scientists said of Geller that he had “proven his supernatural perception unequivocally.”

 

The modern version of spoon bending is global warming and climate change. From bending spoons, Geller was able to make quite a good living. From climate change, many many people are making a very good living. Do you really want to waste your money giving it to people who are in on this worldwide pseudo-scientific scam?

Green is the stupidest colour

This is most of an article by David Archibald titled, Stop The Climate Stupidity. You know they won’t because for some of them there is so much money in it, and for others this is their religious observation. My only suggestion is that when we have to cut electricity, we should first cut off power to any electorate that voted for the Greens, and then work out from there. Anyway, David’s post:

When I got involved in global warming over a decade ago, the promoters of that cult wanted Australia to reduce its coal consumption by 20%. It was easy enough to predict that doing that would damage our economy and reduce our standard of living.

Here we are today. The damage has been done, and is getting worse. State governments have gleefully blown up coal-fired power stations in fits of religious ecstasy.  As a consequence we have just had the summer blackouts that were also so easily predicted. One sign of an advanced civilization is a stable, cheap, and reliable electrical power. We used to have one of those. We now rely upon diesel generators in part, like most third world countries.

The cost of following the whacko religion of global warming isn’t just economic. It is also destroying lives, ending some before their time, and destroying businesses, hopes, and dreams.

It need not be this way of course. We can go back to having a first world power system, and we could choose the correct path to go from here. This is not a multiple choice exercise though. There is only one correct path.  If we don’t take that path we will be staring into the abyss, before we fall into it.

First of all, let’s understand how we got into the dreadful situation of having whackos in charge of our power supply.

Brazil had an election last year and the corrupt and incompetent socialists were thrown out and replaced by people who seem to understand how the world works. The first words out of the mouth of Brazil’s new foreign minister were that climate change is a Marxist plot.

Why would he say that? Actually he is only repeating what the Marxists doing the plotting have been saying.

Maurice Strong, organiser of the first UN climate summit, 1992:
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

US Senator Tim Worth, 1992:
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Richard Benedick, US State Department, 1992:
“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, former chief communist of the planet, 1996:
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Jacques Chirac, former president of France, 2000:
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

The roots of the global warming plot go back to the 1980s but got a kick along with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. Suddenly the left wing side of politics had no basis for existence. Socialism was discredited by its failure — so there was no need to rule the world, interfere in people’s lives, and take income from workers and give it to bludgers.

So the threat of global warming was conjured up on no evidence. Thus that last statement that a global warming treaty didn’t need evidence. That is, it didn’t need to be based in scientific fact. Science fiction will do the trick.

It wasn’t just high level bureaucrats making these statement about what the real motives for global warming are. Heads of state and ministers of state were and remain fully on board for the New World Order. This is the real reason for the global warm hysteria we have endured.

What about the climate officials and scientists? What do they think it is about? They are all on the same page. It is about taking from workers and giving the fruit of their labor to bludgers. And being in charge of the whole process. The scientists involved have realized that they are paid to lie in public, to mislead the public. And also that their voodoo science doesn’t have anything to do with what is really happening in climate.

Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official, 2010:
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Stephen Schneider, lead author of IPCC reports:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Kevin Trenberth, lead author of IPCC reports:
“None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

See that last statement — that none of the climate models even remotely correspond to the current state of the climate? That has been going on for at least 20 years.

Tom Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research, to 
Michael Mann:
“Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Tim Wills, Swansea University, 2007:
“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

None of these people have died for what they have done – only
little old ladies in Australia who can’t afford heating in winter.

The first quote above, from the Climategate emails, reflects the normal dishonesty and lying that goes on in official climate science. The second one sounds a note of alarm at this sort of behavior. He also raises the possibility that we could be experiencing just a normal climate cycle –- something that doesn’t have anything to do with carbon dioxide.

There was a story in Quadrant last year by a bloke who lost his mother to pneumonia. With the rapid rise in power prices she thought she couldn’t keep the heating on, and never recovered from catching a cold. Mortality does start rising as the temperature of a home falls below 17 degrees Celsius. Her story was told and documented. There are so many others that aren’t, their lives foreshortened by a whacko religion, dying in the cold and the dark.

Thanks to the global warming believers amongst us, each winter now comes with a bitter harvest of dead grannies. We can blame the global warmers for this situation — but if we don’t do what we can to stop this and set things to right then we share the blame for not acting. We are the responsible adults, with a grip on reality, and so the deaths of little old ladies in unheated homes and all the other attendant destruction that the global warming cult has wrought is also on our heads. We should know better, we can do better and we must not abide this.

The threat to Australia is also existential. Destroying our power supply weakens us economically, so we are also less able to defend ourselves. The ultimate goal of the global warmers is to subsume our country into a UN-run third world morass. We know that because people from the UN have said that is their plan — witness Ms Figueres above, as nasty a leftie as God has ever breathed life into.

The rest of the post continues at the link.

Global warming – that is, its absence – properly displayed

temperatures in fahrenheit

The diagram is from Steve Hayward at Powerline which he includes in a post he titles, The Only Global Warming Chart You Need From Now On. A tad over-optimistic about the AGW crowd actually paying attention to facts and data, but it really is quite an interesting perspective. He writes:

What if you display the same data with the axis starting not just from zero, but from the lower bound of the actual experienced temperature range of the earth? I had never thought of this until an acquaintance sent it along today.

A little hard to get worked up about this, isn’t it? In fact you can barely spot the warming. No wonder you need a college education to believe in the alarmist version of climate change. No wonder the data (click here for original NASA data if you want to replicate it yourself) is never displayed this way in any of the official climate reports.

If this chart were published on the front page of newspapers the climate change crusaders would be out of business instantly.

Alas, it is the people who decide what goes onto the front pages who are most enthralled by climate change. They won’t report anything that fosters a more judicious consideration of the facts because not only do they not believe any of this on principle, they are also unwilling even to discuss any of it in an open forum with those who actually could take them on – Ian Plimer say. For myself, I would prefer that there really were facts to go with the scare than that we should live at such a time when something as obviously untrue as this is so widely believed, and especially by those who are supposedly well educated and are, in theory, trained to take a more sceptical look at issues such as this.

Maybe they’re just ignorant and dumb

I cannot get used to all this global warming climate change nonsense in every paper and in all the news shows. And it is almost always representatives of the left side of politics and their media mates that carry the virus. But why is it? Why do they so consistently fall for the most blatant con job in the history of politics, or at least the second most blatant, with socialism being Number One.

Maybe they are just ignorant, or gullible, or stupid, or shallow or fools or dishonest. But it has to be something because this is so consistent that it defies reason. Why is it a certainty that Obama, for example, thinks global warming climate change is a problem while Ted Cruz or Donald Trump can see it is just junk science masquerading as social justice.

Really, it does defy explanation.

How to spot a climate crank at a 100 paces

climate cult

There are some cults you spot right away, such as the Hari Krishnas who are found on the footpath everywhere. And then there are the cults that spring up in the most surprising places, like the cult of global warming. This is a guest post at Watt’s Up with That: The ‘Cult’ of Climate Change (née Global Warming). There are lots of such cults which are forms of supposedly settled science whose only value is that they provide a carte blanche to government cronyism. They also provide for their adherents a feeling that they are in the know, and even when they are a majority, a belief that they have special insight into the actual way things are unavailable to others. There is not a subject area in which they are not found. The article gives you a means to spot them when they are associated with climate absolutism. This is how the article begins:

This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever , Prof. Richard Lindzen, and many others. Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes.

Now go read the rest.

Dealing with the global warming crowd in a cooling world

On Drudge, but down the bottom on the side where no one will see it.

SUN COOLS…
THREATENS ‘LITTLE ICE AGE’…
Light, warmth nosediving to levels ‘not seen for centuries’…

Global freezing is a catastrophe in the making. If it does happen, we should remove from every university department and government agency every single one who had so strongly argued that global warming was our biggest concern. And we should make them repay every last cent of the grant money they received.

What makes you think global warming types care about facts?

alan moran climate change the facts

I am happy to find that the facts are with the sceptics, but I wouldn’t be all that sure that the politics are as well. Tim Blair wrote a brief note the other day on He Continues to Believe, the he being Chris Bowen and the belief being climate change. Here’s the core:

Evidently enjoying his time in opposition and wishing to extend it, Labor’s Chris Bowen revives the carbon tax:

We continue to believe firstly that climate change is real.

Secondly, that it’s caused by humankind and thirdly, the best way of dealing with it is a price on carbon.

We continue to believe that, and that will be reflected in our detailed policy that we announce and seek a mandate to implement.

Really, Chris? A mandate for the carbon tax? That’ll be a first. Of course, this is less about saving the planet than it is about saving inner-city Labor seats from metastasising Greens. Look for Labor in coming elections to form an alliance with the Arts Party. Whatever; here’s some timely news for Bowen on the sainted occasion of his carbon quest renewal:

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Whatever Chris does or does not believe – and he may be as sceptical as any of us – he knows where the votes are. The biggest mistake is to believe that carbon taxes and global warming hysteria is election poison. I watch the Coalition’s climate man in action, and no sceptic he. Facts on the left are mere confetti, to be tossed in the air when you have some and ignored when you don’t.

Lies, damned lies and temperature records

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures is the story, reported here as well, but how can they know the records were fiddled before they check?

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

It ought to be a mystery, but it’s not really. If you hide the decline the number must go up.