Mar 292012
 

Good Lord! – The Right, The Honourable
Abortion And Islam – Morally Superior?
Rude Interruption – The McBean Consensus
Puzzle Unsolved – Issues Resolved

The sphere and cylinder conundrum video by itself.

Depending on you browser settings you can click here to download the show or use the player below to stream it.

Mar 222012
 

On March 22nd, 2012 I sat down with Lord Christopher Monckton for a one-on-one discussion of education, journalism, Catholicism, Islam, conservatism, and philosophy.

Mar 182012
 

Video I took on March 18, 2012 of Lord Christopher Monckton speaking to supporters of the International Free Press Society – Canada at Windermere Manor in London, Ontario. Topics of his speech included the United Nations, environmentalism, science, reason, Agenda 21, Marxism, Islam, and abortion as one of the reasons for the eventual downfall of the West.

Mar 152012
 

241 - Monckton-Essex - 168x100

GUEST: The Rt Hon Christopher Monckton, Autodidactic Mathematician, Game Designer, Architect, Journalist, Politician, Skeptic
GUEST: Professor Christopher Essex, Dept Of Applied Mathematics And Past Director, Theoretical Physics, UWO; Co-Author Of Taken By Storm

Global Warming – Has All The Hot Air Dissipated?
Advising Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – Changing The Views Of The Iron Lady
From SudoKu X To The Puzzle That Is Lord Monckton
The Courtier’s Conundrum – The Intersect Of Science And Politics

Depending on you browser settings you can click here to download the show or use the player below to stream it.

Mar 312011
 

It was Earth Hour last week and apparently it went virtually unnoticed by the vast majority of us according to the hydro usage stats kept by the various electrical utilities.  People were to turn off their lights and appliances and sit in the dark around candles and contemplate how technology is destroying the planet.  It was a very competitive observance with the winner this year being Kim Jong-il’s North Korea where 24 million slaves have had over 60 years of practice at living in the Dark Age.

What also went unnoticed, unfortunately, was Human Achievement Hour which, by happy coincidence was celebrated by many around the world at the same time as Earth Hour.  Celebrants were to turn on every available light to marvel at man’s creative mind and domination over a hostile planet.  For this year at least it appears that the intellectual luddites won by a slight margin over the people who enjoy their humanity.  Perhaps next year with the ever increasing popularity of Human Achievement Hour and the ever decreasing trust in the climate change alarmists we can light up the world every night.

This is what The Ayn Rand Institute had to say about Earth Hour, “Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away… Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month… Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.”

That about sums up this feeble hypocritical effort to roll back the age of enlightenment to a simpler and darker age called the Age of Ignorance.

The horrific events which occurred in Japan with the earthquake and tsunami which killed over 27,000 men, women and children, costing an approximate half a trillion dollars in damage and wiping entire villages off the map has been almost overshadowed in the media by a rising hysteria surrounding the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant.   Aside from the fact that the accident has caused no deaths from radiation (although it is thought that some of the Fukushima 50 (300 workers) have received lethal doses of radiation) there have been anti-nuclear technology protests throughout the globe but mainly in Europe.

While nobody likes to see any deaths or disease resulting from a destroyed nuclear plant any steps we take from this technology will cause many more deaths and disease.  Aside from hydro-electric power which is very clean as long as you don’t have to flood thousand of hectares of land such as with the Smallwood Reservoir in Labrador, the only other option to generate the kind of power a modern civilization needs is the burning of fossil fuels, mainly coal.

In 2004, 6,027 people died in China alone from coal mining disasters. 28 died in the same year in the US from similar coal mining disasters.  Pile these bodies up along the approximately 30 people who died in the Chernobyl Incident and the Zero bodies who died in Three Mile Island and the Zero bodies (so-far) in the Fukushima Accident.  The death toll without nuclear power will be intolerable yet the Dark Age enthusiasts who protest nuclear power must think that these are acceptable deaths.  On top of these statistics we can add thousands of cases of black lung disease contracted by coal miners every year.

Is this what the protesters of nuclear energy want?  It would seem so.  But I think they want more.  I don’t think that the kind of ignorance fueling the anti-nuclear hysteria is isolated with that cause.  It is the same ignorance that fuels the anti-automobile movement, the anti-drive-through movement here in this city, the anti-incandescent light bulb and anti-plastic mobs, in-effect the anti-technology movement.  And to be anti-technology is to be anti-human, anti-man as a species.

It is a fundamental and defining characteristic of man to understand nature and to conquer it, to master it, to submit it to our will.  Let me give you an example of the contrary philosophy.   If you take off all of your clothes in a brisk day in January in the middle of any Canadian forest you will freeze to death in minutes.  That is the end result of being anti-technology.  From the very clothes on your back to the gun to keep animals at bay to the car in your driveway, technology, science and discovery have made it possible for man to live, but not only live but live comfortably anywhere on this Earth.

As a species we evolved in the rift valley of Africa and from there with the slow development of technology such as the ability to fashion clothes and light fires we have migrated to the four corners of the Earth.  Those who would rob us of this birth-right to flourish as a species are denying their own nature as rational animals.  They are nothing short of purveyors of darkness and death.

(Broadcast on Just Right, Show #193, March 31, 2011)

Jan 072010
 
Sun and Earth

Sun and EarthA recent Leger Marketing poll has revealed that 53% of Canadians believe that human-induced generation of greenhouse gases is a key driver of climate change and without immediate and significant action, the planet as we know it is in peril.

This shows a drastic need for immediate education of those 53% who apparently have been misinformed and because of the misinformation are urging the government to take drastic measures which have the potential of destroying our economy and threatening not only our way of life but our freedom as well.

What I hope to do is take on the falsehoods of the climate change fear-mongers in stages.  I want to challenge their science, specifically the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I want to show how acting irrationally out of fear and panic to false information can do more harm to humans and our planet more than any real climate change could do, and I want to hold accountable those individuals and groups, especially the United Nations, for their scare-mongering and out-right lying to the world.

Today I’ll just address some of the poor science the IPCC and Al Gore have been using to push their anti-human agendas.

Very quickly those pushing for the reduction of CO2 have taken this line of reasoning”

Global temperatures are rising,

CO2 is a green house gas,

Man produces CO2,

Therefore the climate changes or global warming they say we are experiencing is due to Man.

Their final conclusion and marketing point is that the science is settled, irrefutable and agreed to by all scientists.  Anyone who disagrees is disreputable, a climate change denier, a heretic.

I want to tackle that particular marketing point first.  A group of independent scientists which used to call themselves the Science and Environmental Policy Project but who now call their group the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change have produced a report with a petition appended to it.  The petition said the following:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition was signed by 31,478 American scientists.  Compare this to the fewer than100 individuals who had a direct hand in crafting the United Nations IPCC report.

While truth should not be a popularity contest this clearly demonstrates that the UN’s and Al Gore’s assertion that nobody refutes the science is patently false.

Regarding the science itself, the report by the NIPCC took apart every assertion made by the United Nations government picked scientists.  Here are some of the highlights:

Global temperatures rise and fall all the time.  In fact global temperate have been seen to fall for decades even though we see CO2 levels rise during the same time. The earth is currently nearing the end of a 10,000 year period of global warming.  About every 100,000 years there is about a 10,000 year period of warming clearly documented to be due to the changing radiance from the sun due to both the natural cycles of the sun itself but more importantly by several cycles the earth goes through as it orbits the sun and spins on its axis.  These cycles are called the Milankovitch cycles, the combined effects of the earth’s orbital shape or eccentricity, it’s axial tilt or obliquity, its axial precession, its apsidal precession, and its orbital inclination.  All of these characteristics of earth’s movement in its orbit are well documented and are known to drive earth’s climate from ice age to warming to ice age again.

As for the CO2, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is an insignificant one compared to water vapour which accounts for the vast majority of any green house effect.  Also the amount of man-made green house gas is again insignificant to the amount of CO2 release by nature.  The release and capture of CO2 by earth’s oceans account for the vast majority of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  Even then we must remember that CO2 is only a very small component of the atmosphere being only about .05% of the total volume.

All greenhouse models show an increasing warming trend with altitude in the troposphere, peaking around 10 km in altitude.  However the temperature data from balloons gives the opposite result, no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude.  This is clear evidence that any warming at the surface is not due to greenhouse gases including man-made CO2.

Anyone inconvenienced by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” would remember his graphs of global temperature changes over the past 400,000 years and his graph of CO2 changes over the same period.  Did you notice that he showed the graphs separately, the temperature graph higher than the CO2 graph?  He did this because he was hiding his own inconvenient truth.  If he had superimposed one graph over the other everyone would have noticed that the CO2 levels follow the temperature changes with a gap of about 800 years.  Yes, temperature changes precede CO2 changes.  CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes and not the other way around.  And the temperature changes themselves are caused by the variability in solar radiation.

The reason there is an 800 year gap is that it takes that long for the oceans to heat up or cool down and when the oceans heat up and cool down they release or absorb CO2 respectively.   This one fact alone should cause anybody to dismiss Al Gore’s hype and the United Nations’ anti-human fear mongering.

The report by the Nongovernmental IPCC goes on to cover all aspects of climate science making the following conclusions:

  • The evidence that the cause of current climate warming is anthropogenic is very week.
  • There is very robust evidence that the causes of current warming are natural.
  • The computer forecasting of future climate change the UN relies on are unreliable.
  • Sea-level rise is not significantly affected by rise in greenhouse gases.

And what I find to be particularly interesting are some of the report’s final conclusions:

  • Higher concentrations of CO2 are more likely to be beneficial to plant and animal life and to human health than lower concentrations.

And,

  • The economic effects of modest warming are likely to be positive and beneficial to human health.  There would be longer growing seasons in temperate climates, benefitting agriculture and forestry industries and lower heating bills.  One study estimated that there would be 41,000 fewer people who would die each year from respiratory and circulatory diseases and that the overall benefit to the US economy alone would be $104.8 billion in 1990 dollars.

How should we hold accountable those nations among us who would send billions to other countries to prevent them from prospering and using fossil fuels to grow their economies much as Canada did?  We should throw out of office any politician like Prime Minister Stephen Harper who propagates the false belief that man-made CO2 is going to destroy the world.  This is a perfectly good example of why we should not trust the United Nations and why Canada should leave it.

(Originally aired on Just Right Show #134, January 7, 2010.  You can listen to the show by visiting http://wwww.justrightmedial.org.)

Oct 222009
 
Black Light Bulb

Black Light BulbThis week (Oct 22, 2009) some London City Councilors have suggested that the city turn off its street lights completely so that that the birds and the trees can get their rest.  Yes, not the birds and the bees but the birds and the trees.  This dark skies lunacy is just another innovative way that the meddlers have found find to make our lives just that more miserable.

All of this over-regulation, banning, and health scares have something in common and what they have in common is hatred.

About 50 years ago Ayn Rand identified exactly what motivates these people.  She called it “hatred of the good for being the good.”

The following is from an article called The Age of Envy, in
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand.

“Today, we live in the Age of Envy.

“Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

“This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree . . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

“If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

“The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues.

“To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred.”

This quote is from later in the same article:

“What is the nature of a creature in which the sight of a value arouses hatred and the desire to destroy? In the most profound sense of the term, such a creature is a killer, not a physical, but a metaphysical one—it is not an enemy of your values, but of all values, it is an enemy of anything that enables men to survive, it is an enemy of life AS SUCH and of everything living.”

And the last quote I have is from Galt’s Speech in Atlas Shrugged.

They do not want to OWN your fortune, they want you to LOSE it; THEY do not want to SUCCEED, they want YOU to FAIL; they do not want to live, they want YOU to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your WEALTH that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the MIND, which means: against life and man.”

Man’s means of survival is an unfettered mind working in a free society.  Man creates a light bulb – then someone tells him to turn it off.  Man creates items of convenience – then someone tells him that his items of convenience are destroying the insects or the rocks or the trees.  Man creates luxury and is then made to feel guilty about it because it goes beyond mere survival.

Name something man-made and you will always find someone like a politician or pseudo-intellectual who will try to make you feel guilty about using it.

Take your clothes…made with slave labour in China.

Your bottle of water…filling up our landfills.

Your cell phone…gives you brain tumors.

Your car…pollutes the air.

Your house…not energy efficient enough.

Your food…makes you fat or gives you cancer.

Your entertainment, whether television, movies or video games…promotes violence or objectifies women.

Your self and your children…overpopulation.

The list is endless.  You name it and they will find a reason to destroy it.  You value it and they will hate it.

We have on London City Council, and in Queen’s park and in Ottawa a great tribe of people who hate technology, convenience, luxury, even survival itself.  The reason they hate these things is that they really just hate themselves.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right October 22nd, 2009  (Show #125).  To download the show visit http://www.justrightmedia.org)