The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia


Published on  Amazon in Kindle version.

The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia

Continue reading

Posted in Climate, Humour, My Best Articles, science | Tagged | 87 Comments

Prediction: Strong La Nina

As many will already know, the predicted El Nino has come and gone and far from seeing a “step up” in global temperatures as the idiots predicted, as I predicted we have seen a faster than expected drop in El Nino conditions.

Now, I am predicting a stronger than normal La Nina.

As far as I am aware, for most people the effects of a La Nina are far less problematic than El Nino, so quite rightly there will be little concern if we get strong La Nina conditions. It will of course annoy the hell out of the idiots who pushing global warming propaganda, but almost all science and all factual evidence annoys them.

What would be expected is that global temperatures will see a strong decline over the next 5-10 years (that is to say, in the short term the decline should be strong enough to dominate over other natural variations and produce a significant downward trend). Then at some point we’ll see the development of more El Nino conditions and predictions then become problematic – that is to say, I need to know more about the way the climate functions to predict further out.

Paradoxically, whilst (I anticipate) global temperature will be in its least exciting phase, I would suggest we will learn more in the next 10-20 years about the way our climate works than all the “knowledge” presented in all the IPCC reports (which is not a lot – because they leave out all the science to present pure propaganda).

But who am I kidding? Climate academics are amongst the biggest idiots on the planet. So all I can really say is that I expect to learn far more about climate in the next 10-20 years than I have ever learnt from any IPCC report.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Is human intelligence a parasitic life-form?

I started a response to Mark – Helsinki  on the article “The Academic Ape: Instinctive aggression and boundary enforcing behaviour in academia” and it prompted me to think of a long forgotten idea about human intelligence which “I” thought worth recording.

We are all used to the idea that humans are “alive” in the normal sense that any animal is alive. We know that all (not dead) animals are “alive”, so are plants and bacteria, but the definition of “life” becomes someone blurred when we start to consider “lifeforms” like virus which are almost entirely DNA. This DNA does not itself “live” instead it does nothing except invade a host and cause it to reproduce the same DNA (with the odd error).

But then, what is DNA, except pure information! Information which we are now just(?) capable of translating into numbers, sending those numbers across the internet and then recreating at the other end as DNA.

But if we take the idea that DNA is a “lifeform”, then why not any other piece of information? What is the criteria of “living”. If it is reproduction, then not only are viruses alive, but by the same definition wouldn’t ideas that we have in our brain be alive? Because they can be transmitted like a virus.

Take for example this very idea that ideas are a living organism. If you then accept that as a result of reading this blog, then like the virus being transmitted over the internet, then this idea has gone through the internet, lodged in your brain and is now resident there and (in the right conditions of a suitable host) can be able to reproduce yet again by being spread to another person.

So, ideas can behave in some senses like a living organism – at least as much alive as any virus.

Mark’s comments were that:

Success is sought within that lifetime, rather than a search for truth which may have to be handed on generation after generation, history shows us scientists who operated in this way, the giants we stand on the shoulders of, giants that are far and few between in modern times.

This is what triggered me to think of this, because here, the ideas that constitute “science” are a body of information, that like human DNA is handed down from generation to generation. Indeed, we may consider the evolution of ideas to be like the recombination of virus information, except in the case of human ideas, the information content can be increased from knowledge/ideas formed from the real world.

So, unlike human DNA this body of information can mutate within a generation generating new ideas, but otherwise the information of “ideas” and the information of DNA in a virus are very similar: both do not live themselves, but instead they require a host organism to do the work to enable them to spread between us.

But now we run into the big problem, because what really constitutes “us” may not be our human bodies, but the thoughts that inhabit our brains. That is to say, the real “us” is not our physical selves, which may be considered an empty receptacle  – but instead “us” may be the  collection of largely foreign ideas that like an alien species invades our brains and there lives off our bodies using us like a parasitic virus to transmit itself to a new host.

And, unlike our physical bodies which are born and die and there is only one of them, the “dna” of ideas can spread from one person to another much like a virus, so that ideas are a life form largely free from physical constraint.

As such, rather than “scientists … [being] the giants we stand on the shoulders of, giants“, we may need to see the mere human body as an unintelligent receptacle for the ideas of which we call one science. And that in a sense science develops as a separate living entity evolving in a parasitism way using the human body to live.

But if so, intelligence itself may also be largely parasitic, so rather than “science” being a parasite on “us”, what constitutes “us” are the ideas that use our bodies for sustenance. As such “science” may not be a parasite on “us”, but instead the ideas of science and the ideas that constitute what we consider “us”, may be co-existing parasites on our poor dumb thought free bodies.

As such, when science develops, it is not so much because we humans develop ideas, but because ideas gain a fertile human on which they can feed and grow.

Posted in Climate | 10 Comments

The Physics of falling over

The physics of falling particularly related to rough ground appears to be one of those areas which for some reason hasn’t had a lot of research. This article sets out the various issues and is an initial stab at trying to get to grips with this subject. Comments are welcome.

Note: no toddlers were injured or killed during the making of this article.

For reasons which are too complex to explain here,  I wanted to create a model explain how the roughness of terrain affects human locomotion. After a great deal of reading & research to try to find already available work, I found there was very little research into human movement on rough ground and nothing that could answer the specific question of how the roughness of the ground affects humans.

After failing to find research, I then considered how I might find suitable data, but realising there are big issues for this research, I then tried to work out whether it would be possible to create a theoretical model so as to predict the behaviour of humans on rough terrain and derive some useful information that way.

That then led me to the question: “what is it about rough terrain that is a problem to humans on foot and how does this affect us?” And my suggestion is that the key issue relates to “falling over” as well as energy needed.

Previous authors have attempted to model the effect of terrain using a “terrain factor”. For example see: Pandolf et al. “Prediction Modeling of Physiological Responses and Soldier Performance in the Heat

These authors derive an equation similar to that below for the metabolic energy usage:

M = 1.5W+2.0(W+L)(L/W) 2+n(W+L)[1.5(Vw)2+0.35GVW] Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 6 Comments

TV maker Panasonic says it has developed the world’s best weather model

electronics company Panasonic says the company has been running its own global model for several years on an 11,000-core supercomputer. And that PWS model, he said, has not only been outperforming the GFS model but has become competitive with the gold-standard ECMWF model. “We started the global model development in 2008 and finally got to the point where we were outperforming ECMWF by late last year,” Jacobs said.

There are various ways to measure model accuracy, but one of the most widely recognized is “anomaly correlation” at the 500mb, or mid-level of the atmosphere, over a 30-day average. Higher scores are better. Recently, Jacobs said, the PWS model has scored a .926, compared to a .923 for the ECMWF and .908 for the GFS. Essentially, then, a team of five weather modelers and five software engineers, as well as about 20 meteorologists and computer modeling experts at universities under contract, claims to have beaten the best government weather forecasting centers in the world.

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Eco-vehicles fill air with deadly toxins

Eco-vehicles fill air with deadly toxins

Scientists have found electric, hybrid and other supposedly eco-friendly cars produce as much toxic particulate pollution as the “deadly diesels” they are meant to be replacing.

The tiny particles are produced by tyre and brake wear. This happens in all cars, including diesel and petrol, but eco-vehicles produce more because they are heavier, owing to the batteries and other parts needed to propel them. The extra emissions are roughly equal to the particulates saved by reduced engine use.

The added weight of eco-cars means that when they accelerate or slow down, the tyres and brakes wear faster, producing more particulates. The weight also whips up more particles from the road surface.

“We found that non-exhaust emissions, from brakes, tyres and the road, are far larger than exhaust emissions in all modern cars,” said Peter Achten, whose research is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

“These are more toxic than emissions from modern engines so they are likely to be key factors in the extra heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks seen when air pollution levels surge.”

Achten, who runs a scientific consultancy in Holland, and his co-author Victor Timmers, of Edinburgh University, used technical data from the motor industry and government research agencies, including direct tests of brake, tyre and road wear rates, to show that the non-exhaust emissions produced by a vehicle are directly related to its weight. They also built a database of vehicle weights.

“We found that electric and eco-friendly cars typically weigh 24% more than conventional cars,” said Achten.

The findings fit with anecdotal complaints from electric and hybrid car owners that their tyres wear out faster than on conventional vehicles.

Read more …

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Brexit: Please help!

Following the Scottish election, we are finally starting to see the Brexit campaign take off in Scotland. Unfortunately, that means we in Scotland are several months behind England and Wales and therefore we need all the help we can get. I’ve now set up a new blog scotexit where I’m posting information such as who to contact and events:

But please, if you live in Scotland – or even if you do not – get in contact either with me or via the links on the blog

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Dear Thomas

I wrote this in response to “Dear Thomas: An Open Letter to My Son” in the union of Concerned “scientists”. It will no doubt be quickly removed:

Dear Thomas,

When my youngest was about your age, a paper called the Independent said that “Soon Children won’t know what snow is”. As a parent I felt guilty that my children wouldn’t know the joys of snow I had known. As a result I took so called “Global warming” seriously. But I was lied to. Because now my son is an adult – and throughout his childhood snow continued to fall. But worse, we were knowingly lied to and we continue to be lied to.

Indeed, there is no room for doubt on climate. The satellites show no warming for 18 years, that trend is corroborated by the independent measurements from meteorological balloon data. The overall lack of warming is also corroborated by the growing Antarctic ice, the growing Greenland surface ice and the lack of loss of global sea ice.

The only “outlier” is the surface data – which far from global, is plagued by issues like urban heating (because many sites were placed on the outskirts of large conurbations which have seen the most urban heating as towns and cities have spread). As a result we would expect significant cooling adjustments to have to be made to surface data. But NO! When people like NASA who make a great deal of money from environmental monitoring and the global warming scare, employ a 6x arrested eco-activist to “manufacture” the surface data measurement – we can understand why the surface data was never cooled to take account of urban heating, but instead was WARMED such that all the warming since
1940 is due to these adjustments.

Indeed, you might ask yourself the simple question – when NASA spends so much taxpayer money putting satellites into space to measure the temperature of the earth – why do they prefer a metric produced from temperature stations situated in parking lots?

But even if we were to accept the warming shown in the massively adjusted surface data – what is the effect?
Just like the “Children won’t know what snow is” report, you would never know it from the way it is reported, but there has been no increase in floods or droughts globally. There has not been an increase in storms, no significant increase or decrease in snow etc. indeed, if anything has changed it is that hurricane activity has decreased.

The only significant change has been a long term decline in glacial ice – easily explained as a result of coming out of the little ice-age (and the surface ice shows the current temperature trend) and an increase in CO2.

And what has been the impact of this so called “CO2 poison”? Study after study is now showing a greening of the earth,
we are seeing record crop yields. And all this is just as we climate sceptics predicted because farming INCREASE CO2 levels in greenhouses to boost plant growth.

But what about the 20th century warming? Isn’t that unusual? The answer is unequivocally no, if we look
at the best proxy for global temperature over the last 350 years a thermometer. This longest temperature series shows that the 20th century warming is far from abnormal. But here is another interesting thing. Despite having this 350 year temperature series which we know to be a very good indicator of global temperature, academics prefer to use “tree rings”. Now these tree ring “thermometers” are so appalling that they show 20th century cooling. But academics (who make a great deal of money by grants to study this “problem”) are very keen to use these trees rings because they can be used to “show” the 20th century is abnormal (if you hide the recent decline).

Indeed, this long temperature series shows far more than that the 20th century is far from abnormal. It also shows that 3 out of 4 of the major famines in the British isles were due to exceptionally cold years. This shows that cold is the real
killer. A fact born out by the huge increase in winter deaths (around 1million since this climate “global warming” scare started). The lancet medical journal reports 15x as many deaths from cold and heat globally.

So, there should be no doubt about climate. Cold is a killer, CO2 is the essential ingredient to all life on earth and we should welcome an increase. The 20th century warming is far from unusual and almost certainly (largely) natural and whilst CO2 levels are rising, it clearly is not having an impact greater than natural variation as there
is no credible evidence of current warming.

There is no doubt about climate – “global warming” is just one puffed up scam and I am ashamed as a scientists that I, and so many other well meaning people, were so gullible that we nearly destroyed out economy and countrysides when the evidence clearly did not support it and all because of the stupidity or selfishness of a large number of people many of whom make a living from pushing this scam.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

EUampires: Did the Nazi’s really win the war?

Anyone that remembers the promises of a “common market” – a simple trading arrangement which most people thought was a reasonable thing will know how the Euampires will seize any and every opportunity to suck the life blood out of national peoples and nation states.

So, I am absolutely appalled by the idea not only of a massive fund controlled by the EUampires, but one where not only the organisation but all personnel are immune from prosecution, investigation and all executive control of any form by parliaments.

It sounds like something from a Nazi wet dream, it certainly is already infiltrated by every large crime syndicate in Europe – indeed, it sounds as if the whole thing was dreamt up by the Nazi-Mafia gangs.

If we don’t leave the EUampires, future generations will spit on our graves.

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Parking global warming

It is said, that if you navigate a super-tanker, that you need to think miles ahead because of the time it takes the super-tanker to respond. Likewise, government is a bit dim-witted and ideas tend to get absorbed more in a process similar to osmosis than any rational thought process.

So, I have always used the analogy of a long necked dinosaur with a small brain and a very long neck for government:

An overview of the political process from Climategate to present.

An overview of the political process from Climategate to present.

Even if you metaphorically kick them between the legs so to speak, it takes years for the knowledge of that to work its way up through the various organs of government to the tiny brain located at some distance from where the kick was aimed. Continue reading

Posted in Academia, Climate, Funding Imbalance, General, greenblob, Politics, science | 4 Comments

More evidence we sceptics are winning

Ever since Google biased their search engine results in order to boost the coverage of alarmist websites, I’ve found it difficult to assess just how well sceptics are doing. The impression you get from Google is … as you might expect from a highly biased organisation like that … one that many newspapers worldwide still support the climate madness.

So, I was interested to find the article “Climate Change and energy editorials in UK newspapers” on the carbon brief

Obviously we can ignore the Independent and Guardian which are both heading for bankruptcy because of their insane journalism. So, I was just looking down the rest, and almost every editorial was not only very friendly to sceptics, but often extremely hostile to alarmists.

  • Arctic: The US is right to allow Arctic Oil Exploration (FT)
  • Coal: Stock up on candles (Express)
  • Floods: The clowns who’d wreck our way of life (Mail)
  • Fracking: Zealots who will let the lights go out (Mail)
  • Renewable: Costly ineffective and ugly: it’s time to confront wind power (Express)
  • Steel: How many crown jewels can we lose? (Mail)
  • UK Energy Policy: These climate fanatics only cloud debate (Mail)

And there I must stop – because there are many other great headlines.

A must read (for sceptics)

Posted in Climate | Leave a comment