Ant his updated his research on climate change
see his latest research on global temperature changes
Ant his updated his research on climate change
Have a look at the Website of the new branch of Scenic Rim Wildlife Society we are trying to establish.
Ant, my son, writes to me from time to time from his hometown in Philadelphia, USA and the following is part of his recent letter.
I value his views, particularly as a Senior Scientist and pleased of his reasoning on this issue having held simular views for many years, mind you I haven’t done the research he has.
I’ve spent some time reading up on what is going on with global warming after the release of emails and documents from the CRU at the University of East Anglia. Previously I was inclined to give the experts, a la Al Gore, the benefit of the doubt and accept the global warming conclusion without doing much research of my own.
Regardless of global warming (or cooling) I still think it is prudent, and just plain common sense, to look after our environment and minimize our impact. So energy efficiency, reducing pollution, reducing the burning of fossil fuels, preservation of forests and natural habitats, are all aims I support and think governments and companies should be doing more to support.
What I’ve found from digging into global warming is that it isn’t true.
For one thing temperature data has been cherry picked, massaged, and politically interpreted by some people to support their global warming hypothesis.
When I look at broader data sets and raw data, without fudging selected data and omitting other data, you find there is no warming trend, and most likely there has been a cooling trend over the past 5-10 years. Another thing too is that our life on earth depends upon a greenhouse effect of about +33°C, without which the global average temperature would be -18°C instead of the +16°C it currently is.
Historically CO2 levels are lower now than they have been for millions of years, and the temperature is also less than it has been for most of the past 600 million years (apart from a few brief cold spots). Over the past 600 million years the global average temperature has fluctuated between 10 and 25°C.
The average temperature over the past 600 million years has been around +18°C, and the average CO2 concentration has been about 8x what it currently is. Temperature has fallen steadily from around +22°C to its present value over the past 50 million years, and CO2 has fallen steadily from 8x to its current level over the past 150 million years. There is a case for expecting the CO2 and temperature to be higher and closer to the norm.
The second problem I’ve found is that the hypothesis that increased CO2 causes increased temperature is also almost certainly not true, and is definitely not true in the simplistic way that it is presented in the media. When CO2 and temperature data are compared it is clear that CO2 increases have historically occurred with a lag of at least 5-10 years following temperature increases.
In a simple system (like a closed box) you can calculate that an increase in CO2 will result in an increase in absorbed radiation and consequently an increase in temperature; and I agree with these calculations. But the problem is that in a real world case the calculations are too complex and can’t be solved (at least not with current knowledge and not without many assumptions and fudge factors and simplifications). Since historical data show that CO2 increases happen after temperature increases, you can’t conclude that increasing CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. There’s more conflicting data, such as tree ring data, tree growth, and temperature being found to correlate with cosmic rays; solar output variability correlating with temperature; the effects of volcanic activity correlating with CO2 and temperature; and recent reports that anthropogenic CO2 is rapidly removed from the atmosphere.
I think what’s happened has been collusion between environmentalists and speculators, and politicians have jumped on the bandwagon to further their own ambitions for power and money.
There’s trillions to be made trading carbon credits, and there are now new financial instruments (like the infamous credit default swaps) for speculators to gamble with. For a scientist, the goal is to dispassionately record and analyze data. In global warming the stakes are high (doing good or making tons of money, or both), and the problem is so complex that no one really knows how to make a valid model.
I think many of the scientists involved have allowed their ambition (for career, doing good, or profit) to cloud their judgment, much like Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Sadly, I think it makes all scientists and science look bad and undermines motivation to reduce emissions, including CO2, reduce waste, and take better care of the environment.
Comments by Ant Van Dyk Ph.D
- http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeman/GeoColumn.gif Climate change Graph
Great positive experience by one of my friends.
Today I parked at the supermarket; I squeezed in between a huge 4WD vehicle on one side and on the other was a dividing ,raised cement partition about 6 inches high or so.
When I came to leave and to reverse out, first my front tyre then my back kept hitting the cement. I went back and forth, cussing quietly.
Then I heard a voice, ‘You seem to be having a bit of difficulty; let me guide you out.’ He was a young man, maybe in this thirties. He stood in front and called me through the wheel turnings until I was out and clear.
I thanked him very sincerely for his kindness and consideration; typically Aussie he laughed and replied ‘No worries, Mate,’ and walked off.
He need not have bothered; he could have ignored me and walked straight into the Supermarket; or got in his car and driven off. Instead he saw my plight, changed direction completely and walked over to me to help. His thoughtfulness touched me.
Isn’t it nice, in these days of violence and selfishness and inconsiderate behaviour, to suddenly come across this simple action of unsolicited kindness?
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE
I have been following the 2020 conference with interest, but have been amazed by the many adverse, negative comments about the conference in the Courier Mail Newspaper ‘on-line’ comments. Sure a proportion seem to be political based comments but what surprised me was the lack of acknowledgment of “here is a different new Idea and a Prime Minister willing to stick his neck out and offering to be accountable. Why not ‘give the bloke a fair go’, is that not the Australian’s claim?”.
My bias? – 76 year old, born in Holland, 20 years naturalized Australian, belonging to no political party. For what it is worth I offer my opinion as follows.
As one of the most Democratic Countries in the world, Kevin Rudd’s party was elected by a significant majority. Clearly a change in direction was wanted by the majority of people and to actually engage the the population via the conference, to tell him what they want was a refreshing idea rather than to be told pull your head in and do as you are told.
The least is the exposure of the Prime Minister’s views for Australia – ‘these are my views of the future please add to them to make them better’.
Are some of the ideas proposed, not new, borrowed?, if so what, if you think they are OK how else do you get them, from a 2020 conference is as good an idea as any, have any better ideas? then use the Web site to add them.
There are 1000+ very positive people going back home promoting a positive outlook for the future and keen to be part of that outcome, that in itself is a good outcome.
That’s just my view.
Hennie van Dyk
I came across this interesting email, gives you reason to reflect.
Salute the Danish Flag – it’s a Symbol of Western Freedom
By Susan MacAllen
An interesting article on Islamic immigration and the problems created.
In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 – even in Copenhagen, one didn’t see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of i ts citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism – one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism.
Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?
By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.
The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:
“Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.”
“Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”
“Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.”
“Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem.”
“Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.”
It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S.: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of I slam, while others hide in fear for their lives.
Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.
In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of “racism” by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test . You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.
In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. “We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,” he said.
A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, “The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,” she says, “There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.” And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, “In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.”
Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.
Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.
Amazing comments from the Federal Government not the least the Prime Minister involving himself in the the State’s decicion with the need for Council amalgamations, where was he when the other states did the same in a simular way? Mind you it was not election time then.
The frightening thing is the assumption that ‘all Qeenslanders’ lack the inteligence to understand his political ploy to attempt to take advantage of some ‘very focal’ Mayors, councillors and their followers’ with opposition views, I’m sure it is a coincidence that the perceived beneficial effects are in National/Liberal country areas.
Several Members of parliament stated ‘All Queenslanders where in uproar’, clearly the most unfortunate statement ever made, I’m not in uproar and ‘all the people I’m in contact with are neither’.
I do hope that any of the ‘totally ineffective polls or whatever they are called’, afterall the mergers are going ahead irrespectively, are conducted by polling all involved people in the new regional council area not the particular council who don’t like the idea.
More-ever it would be a good idea to publicly declare who was funding the opposition to any relevant merger, developers and the like come to mind.
Expanding further on this idea why not adopt the Swiss practice to poll all people on any major project proposed by the Federal Government as well as the State. I’m sure I don’t have to list all the major decisions you would like to vote on.
The Canberra ambiance must create a very remote understanding of any area away from them, then again I suppose the next elections, State or Federal will sort that problem out.
I understand that a politician’s most urgent need is their preservation eg re-election or in the case of the various Mayors, Councillors and cosy jobs hangers on to not only keep their jobs but to ensure their future – that being rather tennuous for most of us. Mind you you can’t blame them for trying.
Where I live here in the soon ex Beaudesert Shire we have seen the annexing of a large rural area including the Boonah Shire (with a debt of over $10 Mill) and losing a major rate base reducing the population by about a half, (will our rates go up?) but acceptance that life has to go on and we have to adapt with the changes around us seems to pervade around us.
Reflecting on other mergers – the impression is that in many a case a hard basket case has been added to a larger more effective region, hopefully the mix will produce a better result. As always working for possitive result will produce one, obstructing would of course either delay or negate any benefit.