“dumb coral — and dumber journalists” …

Scientists, activists and careerists need to escape the Lab a bit more often. They may get a fright.

Fishy Tales of the Great Barrier Reef

“Among the many life forms thriving in the waters off Queensland’s coast, environmental activists and academic careerists are by the far most adaptable. Despite voluminous evidence that the Reef is healthy, they extract careers, grants and donations from dumb coral — and dumber journalists.” […]

Actually, it’s all about money:


Follow the money

To understand the true driver of the constant chorus singing of allegedly dire threats to the GBR, just follow the money. These imaginary perils are the foundation for a hundred-million dollar local industry of research and management based on addressing them. In turn, the alarmism generates multi-million dollar contributions to the environmental NGOs and their campaigns to “save” the reef. The unquestioning media get the shock! horror! headlines it craces. As for politicians, they find it useful when pandering for low-cost, low-risk green votes. […]

You see, marine organisms are highly adaptable to changes in temperature and alkalinity, not cash contributions:

Ocean Acidification Database (22 September 2015)
The latest addition of peer-reviewed data archived to our database of marine organism responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment is Red Rock Shrimp [Lysmata californica] (Taylor et al., 2015). To access the entire database, click here.

Dr Smales, here, proves my point, sticking to the Perth city and surrounds, warming is blamed, possibly!: Small increases in temperature can change ocean life

I’m sure it can, up here in the tropics it can vary seasonally by as much as 15C, between winter and summer. Which makes some fish migrate south in summer, and whales north in winter! Now that’s change you can believe in.

Animals doing fine with 15C changes:??????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????????

Posted in Climate, comedy, Environment, media, photography, science, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BoM still blowing it hard … groundhog day in Oz

Repeated BoM failures show up regularly on this site. Perhaps “Errors in IPCC climate science.com”: should be called Errors in BoM non-science:

So Minister Greg Hunt ‘killed’ the excellent idea from Tony Abbott’s department for a Bureau of Meteorology review

Now I suppose we are stuck for evah with these insane year after year, after year, after year, after year errors by the ignorant BoM for evah.

On the other hand maybe it is just by chance true that the hottest night-time temperature anomaly across all Australia – just so happened to be at the same outback airstrip in the Northern Territory every year from 2002 to 2007 incl. Yair that makes sense – must make sense to the idiot BoM.
The ABC reports here and here – Jo Nova reports on an expose of massively corrupted BoM data.

Those ‘hot spots’ where no data exists is the sum total of the (non) globull warming by BoM. More:

Raw data records going back to the late 1870s make a mockery of AGW and the hottest year ever.


Posted in comedy, Oz politics, weather | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

mis-practiced BoM … or is it malpractice

Independent science is proving the official records have failed. Adjustments (homogenization) are shown by a mixed group of independent researchers to be faulty, yet Greg Hunt brags that he prevented an official inquiry into the BoM’s practices of making things up, or mis-practices as they should be labelled. Greg Hunt says he killed off Tony Abbott’s weather bureau inquiry.

First, Lance Pidgeon discovered some weird colouring-in by BoM:

Camouflage illusions in the matrix: same mysterious temperature, same day, year after year

Wait til you see what Lance Pidgeon has found. He was looking at the BOM website temperature archive maps of Australia for early last century (using AWAP data). He was wondering how the Bureau of Meteorology could possibly create maps this detailed for specific days that long ago. He was especially curious about the remote, vast areas where there were no thermometers, yet there were wiggly jiggly temperature lines on the map, shaded as if they had meaning. I’ve heard that more people have visited the South pole, than have stood at the point in central Australia where the three large western and central states meet. […]

Dr Marohasy begins, with a paper (peer reviewed) showing how irrigation cools the weather, significantly (build more dams) and then castigates BoM for unnecessary adjustments:

I’VE just had a paper published in the international climate science journal Atmospheric Research (volume 166, pages 141-149), in which I show there was significant cooling in the maximum temperatures at the Cape Otway and Wilsons Promontory lighthouses, south eastern Australia, from 1921 to 1950.  This cooling is even more pronounced in temperature records from the Riverina, including at Rutherglen and Deniliquin.  Indeed, while temperatures at the lighthouses (and most Australian east coast locations) show cooling from about 1880 to about 1950, they then show quite dramatic warming from at least 1960 until about 2002.  In the Riverina, however, minimum temperatures continued to fall through the 1970s and 1980s.  Pondering this issue, it occurred to me that Snowy Hydro may be responsible. […]

You see, BoM people, citizen scientists can’t find your warming anywhere:

In fact, the models are wrong, your homogenization is wrong and Greg Hunt proves that he is a dill. And this is just September, there are many faults found earlier if anyone cares to look.


Australian temperatures, central Australia, AWAP, 20th Century, Bureau of Meteorology

Year after year on the same day of the year, the temperature patterns are identical?

Cooking the books, Part 3 and history repeats itself, two thirds of the world’s data is made up.

Posted in Climate, comedy, Environment, science, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

faith and religion …



It’s an Obama world. Then there are the disciples:

Posted in Climate, comedy, energy, Environment, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

the big climate model error …

Actually, just the first of Dr David Evans error findings of the basic climate model, and the easiest to understand.

4. Error 1: Partial Derivatives

Dr David Evans,

There are three significant errors with the conventional basic climate model (which was described in the basic climate model core part 1,and  basic climate model in full part II). In this post we discuss the first error, the misapplication of the mathematical technique of partial derivatives, because it is the easiest of the three to describe.

By the way, noting that there are problems with the conventional model is hardly new even in establishment circles, but apparently itemizing them is a little unusual. For example, Sherwood et. al said in 2015 [1]: “While the forcing–feedback paradigm has always been recognized as imperfect, such discrepancies have previously been attributed to variations in “efficacy” (Hansen et al. 1984), which did not clarify their nature.”


The basic model relies heavily on partial derivatives. A partial derivative is the ratio of the changes in two variables, when everything apart from those two variables is held constant. When applied to the climate, this means everything about the climate must be held constant while we imagine how much one variable would change if the other was altered.

For example, how does changing the surface temperature affect how much heat is radiated to space (the outgoing longwave radiation, or OLR), if everything else — including humidity, clouds, gases, lapse rates, the tropopause, and absorbed sunlight — stays the same? (This particular partial derivative is the Planck sensitivity, central to the conventional model.) […]

Check out all the posts from Dr Evans.

The sun is what makes the climate change, even small changes like what happened in the last century:

douglass figure 3a

23! New! Papers!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 …Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!, complete with exclamation mark … sigh.…

Carbon dioxide has only a minor effect on any changing climate, and more is better. Feature Documentaries
Longer (27-53 minute) feature presentations, including the popular Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis and The Greening of Planet Earth series.

ScreenHunter_10514 Sep. 24 01.15


Posted in Climate, science, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

climate history repeats … the misuse of meteorological data

Over 100 years ago, data manipulation was rife:

Climate data fraud, like that being done by NASA and NOAA,  is not a new problem. It is up to the “Independent Press” to defend the truth.

it is the misuse of meteorological data …. that constitutes a crime against the community



Today, the manipulation is far worse, with massive consequences. Politics is trying to hide it. Well, the Environment Minister did!

What are they trying to hide!

 Rent-seekers reveal awful truth: Abbott wanted to investigate BOM data, Hunt opposed “due diligence”.

Imagine the crime of trying to audit the BOM?

Last year, Graham Lloyd wrote in The Australian about how the BOM had made whopping two degree adjustments to data which turned cooling trends to warming trends and instead of improving the data, it created discontinuities. The BOM’s eventual explanation lamely exclaimed that the stations “might” have moved. (And they might not, too. Who knows, but remember this is what 95% certainty looks like.) Lloyd wrote about how historical records of extreme heat at Bourke had effectively been thrown in the trash. Who cares about historical records?

In response to the embarrassment and revealing questions, Tony Abbott wanted an investigation.  But Greg Hunt, and The Dept of Environment opposed the investigation and opposed doing “due diligence”. What are they afraid of? Instead, Hunt helped the BOM set up a one-day-wonder investigation with hand-picked statisticians that wasted another nine months before admitting that the BOM methods would never be publicly available or able to be replicatedIf it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science.

The BOM’s defense is always that their mystery method is considered “best practice” by other agencies around the world — who share the same incentives to exaggerate warming, and who also use unscientific and undisclosed (though different) adjustments.

It’s clear Greg Hunt doesn’t want good environmental data. Nor does the ABC, which is already talking about how they hope to get money from the Turnbull government. […]

Read it all …

Then, on top of the data manipulation, we find most of it is just an estimate. Yes, good science that is, (sarc).

Posted in Climate, comedy, media, Oz politics, science, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

the Kapok Tree …

Latest entry in my new site northwestplants.net is a magnificent tall tree, Bombax ceiba,  related to the Boab. They are just finishing the flowering period before new leaves appear.

buckleys 003 Bombax ceiba

Check out that site for more images.

I have a lot of this species seedlings in our nursery ready for planting out and for sale.

Posted in Broome/Kimberley, Environment, photography | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

the professors are speaking out …

It’s a fraud:

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton…

In the last few days a number of highly credentialled scientists have come out with their take on the failed and fraudulent global warming agenda. Following Professor Lewis’ letter of resignation, , posts this letter from , who writes we have populated the scientific community with what I like to call “chickens with no head,” that is, researchers who can produce multiple scientific articles per year, none of which with any particularly important impact on our understanding of the world. Because of this, science is moving forward similarly to how a headless chicken walks, with no perceivable goal […]”

Then along comes Dr Giaever:  Nobel Laureate Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever. Where’s the warming in Greenland? ‘There’s no warming there’

Even leftist Professor Stritmatter speaks out: NPR radio station WYPR gets an earful on climate change from an educated listener

Dr. Roger Stritmatter, a Professor of Humanities writes: “[…] I’m finally unable to keep silent any longer. Since some things that I am going to say may easily be twisted the wrong way by some, let me clarify something for the record: I’m writing this as a lifelong environmentalist and outdoorsman with a strong environmental ethic. Anyone who thinks to put me in another box is mistaken. My check from the petroleum industry never arrived, and I’m not an apologist for that dirty, violent, and hopefully moribund industry.”

Then Dr’s Briggs, Curry, Pielke speak out against Obama’s 20 calling to jail those who disagree with them:

Pielke Jr: ‘This week began with a NYT op-ed comparing climate skeptics to Hitler. It ends with multiple calls for skeptics to be jailed. Lost the plot?’

Continue reading

Posted in Climate, comedy, science, weather | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

science is corrupted by politics and religion …

Dr John Ray posted this at Greenie Watch with his take at the beginning of this post:

Jean-François Gariépy on the corruption of science

He is a brain researcher and is pretty spot-on in what he says below.  Warmism is a glaring example of a complete ethical collapse in science. He is burning his bridges at a rather young age.  But I did too.  I was so disgusted with the poor standards of “research” in the social sciences that I resigned my tenured university teaching job at age 39

This week, I resigned from my position at Duke University with no intent to solicit employment in state-funded academic research positions in any foreseeable future. Many reasons have motivated this choice, starting with personal ones: I will soon be a father and want to be spending time with my son at home.

Other reasons have to do with research academia itself. Throughout the years, I have been discovering more and more of the inner workings of academia and how modern scientific research is done and I have acquired a certain degree of discouragement in face of what appears to be an abandonment by my research community of the search for knowledge. I found scientists to be more preoccupied by their own survival in a very competitive research environment than by the development of a true understanding of the world.

By creating a highly-competitive environment that relies on the selection of researchers based on their “scientific productivity,” as it is referred to, we have populated the scientific community with what I like to call “chickens with no head,” that is, researchers who can produce multiple scientific articles per year, none of which with any particularly important impact on our understanding of the world. Because of this, science is moving forward similarly to how a headless chicken walks, with no perceivable goal.

This issue reveals itself in a series of noxious conditions that are affecting me and my colleagues: a high number of scientific articles are published with fraudulent data, due to the pressures of the “publish or perish” system, making it impossible to know if a recent discovery is true or not. The fact that the peer-review system does not care about looking at the data is not in any way reassuring about this concern. Furthermore, a large portion of the time of a scientist is spent on frivolous endeavors such as submitting a grant request to 5-10 agencies in the hope that one of them will accept. Finally, our scientific publication system has become so corrupted that it is almost impossible to get a scientific article published in an important journal without talking one-on-one with the editor before submitting the article.

Some of my best friends at Duke have told me that I sounded “bitter” when I expressed these concerns. I assure you that I am not and that I am writing these lines with the nonchalance and bliss of a man who has found other ways to be happy and to satisfy his own scientific curiosity, ways that do not involve the costly administrative war of attrition for state money that modern scientists are condemned to engage in. My friends have also pointed out that I should not be “discouraged” by the difficulties faced as a scientist, that I should continue to “fight.” Again, they are wrong; discouragements due to failures have never kept me down. I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained.

My most important scientific articles were accepted in major journals because the editors had a favorable prejudice toward me or my co-authors; because I was making sure that I had a discussion with them before I submitted; or because the reviewers they chose happened to be close colleagues. No doubt the articles contained very good findings—I wouldn’t have spent years of my life on them if they didn’t. However, the real criteria that systematically led to publication, as opposed to the dozens of other journals where they were rejected, was the kind of prejudices described above.

The scientific publication system portrays itself as a strict system for the evaluation of the importance of individual scientific contributions to knowledge, but anyone who has participated to this system and became good at it knows that the true factors that influence the publication of a scientific work have to do with social networking and, in many cases, straight-out corruption. Most of this “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” system operates without wrongful intentions from anyone involved. In fact, I am certain that most people who contribute to it are well-intended people who end up obtaining power here or there in the scientific system and use this power to favor scientists who they genuinely think are good. However, the end result is the same, no matter what the intention is: a corrupt system where favoritism is the norm. A system that I have benefited from for long enough.

It is not surprising that such systems develop given human nature and considering that the publishing of just one article in a major journal means that a researcher can claim his share of a multi-billion dollar flow of money coming from the government or private foundations for his/her future work. No matter what one thinks of this system (I’ve heard everything from “It’s terrible” to “It’s totally fine”), the fact is that I do not have the energy to be a part of it for the rest of my life. I can work 12 hours a day, I can work on weekends, I can work at night, I can handle high-stress environments and I thrive in competition. I could sell a life vest to someone living in the Sahara Desert. Call me at 3 AM and tell me that an animal’s life is in danger and I’ll be dressed for surgery in less than 15 minutes. However, nothing in this world can exhaust me as much as the personal conviction that my work is not noble.

Of course, this does not mean that I will abandon all of my activities related to the search or dissemination of knowledge. I will still teach my courses in Biology and Artificial Intelligence at the University of the People. I will still publish my book, The Revolutionary Phenotype, which contains an important novel theory on the emergence of life. My wish is that this new theory will be taken for what it is and evaluated publicly by whoever wants to comment on it, not by two or three reviewers hiding behind anonymity.

Euclid’s geometry stood on its own, because of the truths it contained, and his books have survived all scientific systems that have existed for the last few thousands of years, remaining perhaps still today the most concentrated series of useful truths ever gathered in a single place. I hope the same happens with my theory, but I want to make sure that whatever remains of it in a thousand years will be what it deserves in and of itself, not some superficial hype artificially generated by the leveraging of my own popularity, social network or other meaningless considerations. Unfortunately, my experience with research academia suggests to me that the traditional scientific publication system is not an appropriate vessel for my theory to obtain such an objective treatment.

I will still, also, publish the Season 2 of NEURO.tv, for which we have gathered amazing guests. I will still go talk science and have fun with the Drunken Peasants. And I will still spend my days trying to prove the Goldbach conjecture, although you probably won’t ever hear about it because I probably won’t succeed. In fact, my leave will likely give me more time to concentrate on these important activities. The reality is that throughout the years, my attention has drifted away from research academia, because I found other ways to satisfy my scientific curiosity that seemed more appealing and more genuine to me.

There is a general rejection of these alternative paths to knowledge dissemination in academia, but I have grown out of caring about it. Selling knowledge and prestige are the bread and butter of universities, so we should not be surprised to see the main recipients of the flow of money coming from well-wishing parents and governmental funding agencies dismiss the validity of other, less socially costly paths to knowledge dissemination.

This reminds me of an event which vastly contributed to my discouragement about academia, and which I think illustrates the vacuity with which certain editors of scientific journals treat the review of scientific works that may have taken years to perform. I was in a scientific meeting in Switzerland a couple of years ago and I was having a discussion with the editor of one of the two most important scientific journals in the world. He was asking me and my PI about different young scientists to know what we thought about them. He did not seem so concerned about the quality of their work or the insight they provided on the world. He was asking about their reputation. I remember a question that he asked very seriously but that was hilarious to me:

“And David Eagleman, I saw his book, is he a good one?”

The editor later proceeded to explain to us why he was inquiring about the reputation of these scientists:

“I’m asking to make sure that I accept articles from reputable people. Because you see, at ******, we want to do real science, not Richard-Dawkins-type science.”

It is hard to express how many mental facepalms I have experienced in my head when he completed that sentence. A swirl of facepalms, a googol of facepalms +1, an embedded infinity of facepalms. I remember discreetly shedding some tears for an hour that night at the conference’s bar, not because that man was unjustifiably mean to one of the most intelligent scientists in the world, but because I had come to the realization that our system of scientific publication is governed by people who have no idea what knowledge is.

I want to thank all the academics I have been interacting with in my career; especially those from Duke and the Université de Montréal. Academia is a weird thing; it is populated with very intelligent, motivated and brilliant people, who are operating in a system that is simply defective to the point of impeding on the very ability of these individuals to engage in a true search for knowledge. In this sense, I am leaving research academia for the same reason that I joined it 12 years ago: in search for a better way to satisfy my hunger for a scientific understanding of the world.


Posted in Health, science | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Union doo doo, shredded …

A bombshell went off in former CFMEU leader, Dave Hanna’s brain today, when caught lying by  The tape from a conversation in the Qantas lounge at Brisbane Airport has dropped Hanna and others right in the doo doo.

This time, it wasn’t horse doo doo in the horse float, but tonnes of Union documents, on the day the Union was subpoenaed to provide all documents to the Commission. They were sent to Hanna’s farm in several horse float loads. Days following, more documents were shredded with the help of all staff.

The rest of this week, office staff will be scrutinized and cross-examined, but the writing is on the wall. What other recordings are there? Who is the whistle-blower? Who else is going to crash and burn?

Burn did I say? They then tried to burn the documents at Hanna’s farm, before getting a 7 tonne truck to take to it to the tip. It was going to take too long and the fire brigade would have noticed. A Union Organizer was delegated to make sure it all went over the edge into the pit at the tip.

You can’t make this stuff up! The Australian was very quick to report.

Gosh, I’ve never looked forward so much to watching the squirming, can’t wait for tomorrow’s hearing.

The CFMEU are Labor’s primary political donor. Update, Oh, no, it’s Spermgate.

Yes, that came up today.

Posted in comedy, Oz politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment