Saturday, 19 August 2017


Australians may not be eligible for election to their own Parliament

Australians are facing a major constitutional crisis with a legal opinion claiming that the entire population may be ineligible for election to their own parliament. And New Zealand is to blame. Already, several MPs with parental connections to New Zealand, have resigned or are waiting for a court ruling. The most senior being the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce.
Australian Deputy Prime Minister
Barnaby Joyce
But is appears to go much further than that. This may be the deepest constitutional crisis since the Rum Rebellion of 1808-1810 when Governor William Bligh was arrested by the military and sent packing back to England. Yes, that was Bligh of the mutiny on the Bounty. The poor man couldn’t do anything right. The dismissal of Gough Whitlam’s government in 1973 was, by comparison, just a game of fiddlesticks. The 2017 crisis is the real thing.
According to Sydney barrister and mediator, Robert Angyal, a simple law change in New Zealand several years ago may have rendered all Australians ineligible for election to their own Parliament. The New Zealand Immigration Act grants automatically to all Australians the right to permanent residence in New Zealand. They only have to turn up at the border and they can stay as long as they like, work and enjoy all the benefits of New Zealand citizens, including the right to vote after one year, and citizenship after five years. They have that right, unless they are not of good character, which may exclude some politicians, but who would expect them to admit to that?
So, they have an extremely serious problem.
The problem being that Section 44 of the Australian Constitution states that any person who is a citizen of another country, or is entitled to the benefits of being a citizen of another country, is not eligible for election the Australian Parliament or Senate. So, the New Zealand law has slam dunked the Australian Constitution, the Government, and probably every law enacted in Australia since Australians gained the right to be New Zealanders. For Kiwis, this is better even than having the All Blacks beat the Wallabies, and this time it didn’t take balls to do it.
One course of action would be for all the members of the House and Senate to renounce their right to New Zealand citizenship. But another immediate problem presents itself. Who would they make the renunciation to? The Australian Governor-General who was appointed by a Cabinet that comprised disqualified MPs? That won’t work. Somehow, Australia must get rid of all its ‘elected’ federal politicians. Whoever accepts the declaration, would have to be a foreigner. One rather dramatic way would be to invite President Trump for a state visit. He could just disembark from Air Force One and say, “You’re fired!”
On the other hand, Foreign Betty might just be a better choice. She would do it ever so nicely, and the Royals have always had a closeness with Australia. Some went to school there, and her husband was once rumoured to have other children living there. Yes, it should be Foreign Betty. She is not an Australian or a New Zealander. Yes, Betty is the one. But listening to the declaration 226 times might be a bit much after the long flight. She could die at number 99 and what a pickle that would be! A better idea would be for old Betty to just, nicely of course, dissolve both houses and call for fresh elections. But no, that won’t work either. Australians would still be electing people who are disqualified.
Here is my suggestion. New Zealand can come to the rescue with a trans-Tasman political restructure. Since 2010, New Zealand has become skilled at fixing things broken, and I believe we can fix Australia’s constitutional crisis. We can offer to establish a new nation called Anzac. It would comprise two states; Aoteoroa and West Island. The federal capital could be sited on the Sunshine Coast, because it has better weather than Wellington, and Aoteoroan politicians would get more frequent flyer points.
Australian Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull
The buildings that currently house the federal parliament and government offices, could be occupied by the West Island State Government. The current states of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania would become district councils. All city councils in West Island would become community boards. It would be a very simple structure with lean, mean running costs and low taxes.
The above plan would enable Barnaby Joyce to keep his job while enjoying the benefits of being a real New Zealander. Malcolm Turnbull may have to resign due to shame because no doubt West Islanders would start calling him Malcolm Turncoat, and worse. However, if he was to survive the political turmoil and ensuing elections, he would have an easier workload as the Premier of West Island.
Meanwhile the main workload would be carried by Anzac Prime Minister Bill English and his deputy Paula Bennett, or at an outside chance Jacindarella Ardern and Kelvin someone.

Friday, 18 August 2017


Is it safer to live in an urban or rural location?
Ask a hundred people at random if they would feel safer living in an urban or rural area and most will opt for the country. They will site fewer crimes, accidents and disasters. They will almost always mention fewer everyday pressures in country life. In the country people are more law-abiding and friendly, and is safe to leaves houses and cars unlocked.
Let’s compare town and country in New Zealand to see just how accurate the assumptions are.
Mass Murders/Massacres in New Zealand
Starting with the most recent massacres or multiple murders, we go to Ashburton in rural Canterbury, a town of 20,000 people. In 2014, Russell John Tully gunned down two women at the local Work and Income office because he had a ‘grievance’. There was nothing big city about Ashburton. It was an otherwise peaceful small town in a sparsely populated rural district.
Russell John Tully
In 2001, William Bell killed three workers at the Panmure Returned Services Association clubrooms. Panmure is in the eastern suburbs of New Zealand’s largest city, Auckland. So far the score is city 1, country 1.
In 1997, the focus was on tiny Raurimu, a railway and timber village almost as remote from the big cities as it is possible to get in New Zealand. Madman Stephen Anderson went berserk with a gun and killed six people.
In 1995, it was the turn of New Zealand’s fourth largest city, Hamilton, to lose six people in a hotel fire deliberately lit by Alan Wayne Lory. The score is now city 2, country 2.
The Dunedin city Bain murders have been in the headlines since five family members were found shot dead in 1994. City 3, country 2.
In June 1992, Masterton, another 20,000-population town far from the big cities, was the scene of the Ratima family murders when Raymond Wahia Ratima killed seven family members. Score 3-3.
Next, we go to a farm near tiny Paerata, 50 kilometres south of Auckland. There on, 20 May 1992, Brian Schlaepfer gunned down six people before shooting himself dead. Score 3-4.
The Aramoana Massacre in 1990 is believed by many to be New Zealand’s worst ever mass shooting. But, sadly, that is far from the truth. Aramoana is a quiet seaside settlement about 30 kilometres northeast of Dunedin, and it was there that David Gray shot and killed 13 people, injured another four and was shot dead next day by police in a two-way exchange of gunfire. Score 3-5.
The Featherston POW Massacre (often described as a riot) occurred on 25 February 1943 in a rural district of the southern Wairarapa. A confrontation between New Zealand Army personnel and Japanese prisoners of war started when the prisoners refused to work. A New Zealand officer then shot and injured the most senior Japanese prisoner. There is disagreement about what happened next with some claiming the prisoners panicked and others claiming they charged the New Zealanders. In less than a minute the shooting was over with 49 dead and 80 injured. The city versus country core is now 3-6.
Kowhitirangi, a farming district inland from Hokitika, was the scene of the Stanley Graham shootings in 1941. Graham shot and killed seven people before being shot and killed by police. Score 3-7.
Other mass murders of the last 100 years include six shot at Morrinsville, Waikato, in 1934, and seven shot at Himitangi, Manawatu, in 1929. Mass murder score, city 3 events, country 9 events. This means that the likelihood of becoming a mass murder victim is three times greater in a rural area or country town setting than in a city. If it is a violent death that you fear, stay in the big city for safety.
Road Crashes in New Zealand
According to NZTA statistics, the top ten roads where drivers are most likely to be involved in an accident, are all rural state highways. They include SH31 in Waikato, SH43 in Taranaki, SH94 between Te Anau and Milford Sound, SH37 Waitomo, SH41 in King Country, SH77 in Canterbury, SH2 between Featherston and Upper Hutt, SH30 from Te Kuiti to Atiamuri, SH34/SH2/SH30 between Whakatane/Kawerau/Matata (the Bay of Plenty Triangle), and SH2 between Napier and Wairoa.
A typical road crash scene in New Zealand
New Zealand’s worst road accident happened in 1963 when 15 people died after a bus crashed off SH1 on the Brynderwyn Hills. The brakes failed on the bus while descending a steep, winding hill in rural Northland. The next worst road crash happened in May 2005 when a tour van driven by George Gibson collided with a truck on SH27 in rural Waikato. Gibson died along with all seven passengers.
Car crashes involving three or four people travelling with inexperienced young drivers are a frequent occurrence on New Zealand’s rural roads.
Industrial Disasters & other Accidents
With most heavy industry located in or close to major cities, one would probably expect industrial employment to be more dangerous in the cities, but again the records show something quite different.
The country’s worst industrial accident happened on 26 March 1896 at the Brunner Mine a few kilometres east of Greymouth in Westland. An explosion in the mine took 65 lives. An explosion underground was also the cause of 43 deaths at Ralph’s Mine near Huntly in the Waikato in 1914. Another mine explosion killed 34 miners at rural Kaitangata, Otago, in February 1879. More recently, in November 2010, 29 miners died at the Pike River Mine 46 kilometres north of Greymouth, again due to an explosion. The nearby Strongman Mine in 1967 was the scene of yet another explosion, this time killing 19 miners. Mining accidents in New Zealand have been frequent through history. The mines are mostly located in rural areas where mining is often the only opportunity for employment.
Shipping disasters have been frequent throughout New Zealand history and, since they mostly happen at sea, have little relevance to this city and country safety comparison. However, the remote Motu River in eastern Bay of Plenty was the scene of the worst river accident when 18 people drowned in a canoeing accident in 1900. The Cave Creek disaster of 1995 happened in the Paparoa National Park, a remote Westland area, when a viewing platform collapsed killing 14 people.
Life Pressures
Many people leave the big cities to coincide with retirement. Usually they want to get away from the hustle and bustle of city life and opt for what is a freer, safer and more relaxing environment. Some will quit the city for lower priced housing in rural areas, but there is a reason for country houses being cheaper. The countryside can be a place with pressures not seen so often in the cities. For those wanting full or part-time employment, the opportunities are limited. The loss of the one industry that keeps a small town prosperous can quickly reduce people to poverty, despair and crime.
In the big cities and larger towns there is always choices for employment, schools, shopping, services, business opportunities, social life and choosing friends and neighbours. The abrupt loss of one of these can seriously affect rural residents, and not for the better.
Now available as an e-book

Life expectancy may be a little higher in rural, but not because life is easier there. Rural areas traditional have older populations due to young people moving to the cities for opportunities in education and employment, and older people moving to the country for retirement. So, the true-life expectancy in the country is not clear. However, a significant indicator of the pressures of country life can be found in the suicide statistics. In rural areas, the suicide rate is 12.5 per 100,000 rural population, while the urban rate is 10.8 per 100,000 urban population.
Comparisons with Australia
New Zealand and Australia are similar countries in many ways with almost identical rates of urbanization, employment, wealth, culture, customs, crime rates and other factors, notwithstanding that Australia has a much larger population and land mass. The urbanization rate for Australia is 89% with New Zealand just 1% less urbanized at 88%. From this one would expect that the crime, disaster and accident rates would be apportioned on an 88-12% basis for New Zealand, and 89-11% for Australia. But that is far from the case.
An analysis of the 100 most violent crimes in Australia since 2000 shows that only 57% were committed in urban areas where 89% of the population lives. In the country areas, where only 11% of the population lives, they had 43% of the national violent crimes.
Australian road crash statistics show an even more alarming pattern for rural residents. In remote Northern Territory, the Stuart Highway from Darwin to Pine Creek is rated as the place most likely to involve motorists in an injury or fatal accident. That is followed by several sections of the Bruce Highway in rural Queensland. The six most dangerous places to drive are all in rural areas of the Northern Territory and Queensland. Although the total death toll may be higher on some urban motorways, the percentage of travellers completing journeys without incident is much higher than the rural areas.
Comparisons with the USA
In gun-crazy America, the trend is similar. Country people are far more likely to die violently than their big city counterparts, notwithstanding that more city people carry guns for protection than do country folk and the murder rate is higher in some cities like Chicago and Detroit.
But even with the high rate of gun ownership, Americans are less likely to be shot dead than killed in an auto crash. Americans who live rurally drive more, drive further, longer and faster than city dwellers and die at the rate of 27 deaths per 100,000 population, compared with just 10 per 100,000 for city folk. Drink/drug driving is also a greater problem for rural residents.
Although some city Americans retire to less populated areas, those who see out their final years in New York City (America’s highest population density city), live on average over two years longer than the national average. Many New Yorkers don’t own cars, use only public transport and do more walking than other Americans.
The USA, even with the 18 million in New York City and 12 million in Los Angeles, is slightly less urbanised than Australia and New Zealand. The American spread is only 80% urban to 20% rural, compared to 89-11% for Australia and 88-12% for New Zealand. But whichever way you look at personal safety, the trends are the same. It is much safer in the city than in the country.
Sources: Wikipedia; official stats. for New Zealand, Australia and USA, Time Science and National Geographic.

Monday, 7 August 2017


Will the new revolution on wheels take-off or stall?

Internal combustion engines have had a long reign as the principal means of propelling land transport, but perhaps they now have a limited future, because the use of electric vehicles is on the rise. The internal combustion engine (ICE) is noisy and dirty, and the fuel that they burn is said to be running out rapidly. The ICE is blamed by many people, including many scientists, for climate change and health issues due to exhaust pollution.

To many people, the electric vehicle (EV) using renewable energy, has come along just in time to save the planet from destruction. By 2016 more than one million EVs had been delivered worldwide, but that represents less than 0.1% of the worldwide vehicle fleet. As of 2010 the world vehicle population exceeded one billion for the first time, or approximately one vehicle for every seven people.
The first production electric car was designed by
Thomas Parker in 1884

Building the infrastructure for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles, including roads, fuel stations and supply network, manufacturers, and suppliers has taken over 100 years. While much of the infrastructure will remain unchanged, much new infrastructure will have to be built from scratch for EV’s. Some people believe that conversion from ICE to EV can be achieved in five or ten years. Others are more cautious with some predicting 20 or 30 years as a more realistic time frame. The governments of the UK and France have already declared that they will pass laws requiring 100% EVs by 2040. But that is only a declaration to change the law, and a law changed now can just as easily be amended or revoked later if the target date becomes unrealistic.

At this point, one has to ask, if EVs are the way of the future, why were they not the way of the past?

Well, some will say that the oil companies and/or banks and other big business interests blocked the development of EV’s. My response to that is that other posts on this blog deal with conspiracy theories. Other people will say that EVs were only recently invented or discovered. Let’s examine that and how the development timeline of the EV compares with other methods of propulsion.
Thomas Edison with an electric car in 1913

Steam was the earliest form of mechanical motive power with experiments taking place in the 17th and 18th centuries. Then in 1800, Richard Trevithick developed a high-pressure steam system that paved the way for mobile steam engines. Throughout the 1800’s  steam was king. Many different types of steam vehicles were used on railways, roads and in industry. But steam road vehicles were hampered by some countries prohibiting their use on public roads. During the early 20th century, ICE technology advanced rapidly and steam became largely outdated except for railways, and eventually steam fizzled there too.

The internal combustion engine defies a point in history pin-pointing its creation. Many scientists and engineers have contributed to its development over a long period of time, starting with John Barber, who in 1791, patented the first gas turbine. It was nothing like modern day ICEs but it was a start as a method of propelling a horseless carriage. Three years later, Robert Street patented an internal combustion engine, the first to use liquid fuel.

In 1807 Isaac_de_Rivaz, a Swiss engineer, was the first to use an electric spark in an ICE. Other developments took place over a period of years until 1876 when Nikolaus Otto, Gottlieb_Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach patented the compressed charge, four-stroke engine, and Rudolf_Diesel developed the first compression ignition engine in 1892.

Continued below . . . 

For those supporters of electric vehicles, I have some disappointing news. EV’s were not invented in the 1990’s or 2000’s. Historically, they are placed between steam and internal combustion, with the first model electric vehicles built by various people in the early 1800’s. In 1828, Hungarian inventor 1nyos_Jedlik, invented the electric motor and dynamo, and built a small electric car. Then came the non-rechargeable battery and a car designed by Professor Sibrandus Stratingh of the Netherlands in 1834. His car was able to complete a short trip before installing a new battery.

Rechargeable batteries followed in 1859 when Frenchman Gaston_Plant invented the lead-acid battery. This battery was improved in 1881 by Camille Alphonse Faure and led to their availability on an industrial scale. An electric-powered bicycle was displayed at the 1867 World Expo in Paris, and in 1881 a three-wheel version was tested on a Paris street.

The first production electric car was designed by Thomas_Parker in London in 1884. Parker was famous for having electrified the London Underground and some tramways. Parker’s compamy had an almost complete monopoly on the British electric car market in the 1890’s at a time when steam and electric were each trying to dominate the market while internal combustion was a distant third in the race for most sales. In the 1890’s, the United Kingdom and France were the first nations to buy EV’s on a grand scale, and now more than a hundred years later both countries are about to set 2040 as the year when EV’s will replace ICE’s totally.

Back in the glory days, before the rise of the ICE, EV’s outsold all except steam and held many speed and distance records, including the first to break the 100 kph barrier in 1899. In 1900, Ferdinand Porsche started production of the Lohner-Porsche Electromobile with hub-mounted electric motors and a petrol engine, making it the first hybrid. It remained in production only until 1905. The first American EV was built in 1891 by William Morrison of Iowa. It could carry six passengers at 23 kph.

In Europe and America some homes had been wired for electricity by 1900 and that boosted the numbers of EV’s purchased. At that time in America, 40% of automobiles were powered by steam, 38% by electric and 22% by gasoline. But the golden age of the EV was about to end.

Speed and range limitations coupled with production costs and a dearth of recharging facilities ended the first surge in EV popularity. Most EV manufacturers closed within the first 15 years of the 20th century. Improved roading, longer trips, and cheaper and more readily available gasoline, turned people away from electric and steam. It was all about cost and convenience.

The Apollo moon landing craft were successful electric vehicles.
But all three are parked permanently on the Moon
EV interest never died completely. Trains, trams, trolley buses, fork lifts and mining equipment have continued to be electrically driven, but the golden days of the 1890’s-1910’s seemed gone forever. From time to time, concerns about fuel prices and pollution stir interest in EV’s, but it has never been sufficient to put the EV in a dominant position in the market. The EV carries a burden of history.

In 1990, as concerns about the cost of gasoline, pollution and climate change increased, General Motors unveiled the GM Impact electric car at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Later, GM produced 1,100 cars designated as the EV1. Meanwhile, Honda started production of the EV Plus, but stopped production after just 340 units had been built. Then came the hybrid Honda Insight, which after six years in production had sold 17,000 units worldwide. That was an improvement, but it was dismal in a world that was then producing 66 million vehicles a year.

The burden of history is still plaguing the electric car. They sound clean, green and efficient on the surface, but there are still serious questions about their practicability. They are expensive to produce, although the cost may decrease with time. They are inefficient to operate with a limited range and the considerable time required for recharging. But proponents of the EV say all that is changing rapidly. Now questions are being raised about the cost and supply of the electricity that will be needed to supply a predominantly EV world fleet. Proponents say wind and solar will meet the challenge. But wind and solar are unreliable and costly, and depend on heavy industry to produce wind and solar equipment. In the United States, 33% of electricity is produced from natural gas, 30% from coal, 20% from nuclear and only 15% from renewable sources, including hydro 6%, wind 5%, biomass 1.5% and solar less than 1%. As the so-called clean, green fleet takes to the highways, there will be increased dependence on dirty sources of electricity.

Electric cars have always been expensive and the play-things of the wealthy, even though the support to introduce them comes from the political left. The cost of producing EV’s may well decline, but as it does, the cost of buying the electricity for them will skyrocket. Renewable energy sources are expensive and less reliable, and the demand for electricity will increase as the EV fleet grows. The consumption of electricity for recharging vehicles may become the major part of household electricity cost. With a rapidly growing EV fleet, demand for electricity will outstrip supply. Prices will escalate and power cuts may be inevitable as suppliers’ struggle to expand the electricity infrastructure.

There is one more enemy of the EV; changes in driving habits. Increasingly, cars will be used only for longer trips into the countryside and city to city. This trend is already taking drivers into areas where recharging will be unavailable in the near future. They will also increasingly be taking trips that will not allow time for recharging. Traditionally, EV owners have been city folk, but city folk are now turning to public transport in increasing numbers.

There may be a future for EV’s, but it will be a long haul waiting for EV technology to catch up to ICE technology and while the infrastructure expands to meet the new demands. For those who believe that EV’s will be the majority on the world’s roads within 10 or 20 years, my advice is don’t hold your CO2 waiting for it to happen.

Thursday, 27 July 2017


Michael Mann has advocated suing and silencing those who voice an opposing opinion on anthropogenic  climate change, otherwise known as man-made global warming. He is no stranger to the inside of courthouses. But now he has found himself in the impossible situation where his bluff has been called and he has defied a court order to produce the data that will legitimize the famous 'hockey stick' that is the basis of all climate alarmist claims.
Fatal courtroom act ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
Michael Mann, creator of the
 climate alarm hockey stick graph
The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”
As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph data, relied upon by the UN’s IPCC in the iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’
Tim Ball, global warming skeptic
As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.
The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr. Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr. Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called “climate deniers” like President Donald Trump and his EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
As Dr. Ball explains:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
Punishment for Civil Contempt
Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” is a true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is proven to have wilfully hidden his data and the court can rule on this because it is fake. As such, the court must dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.
The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr. Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making climate fraud in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Dr. Ball has been unswerving in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Dr. Ball has been at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency by government-funded researchers.
As Ball explains:
“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy
A bitter and embarrassing defeat for a scientist, self-styled as a ‘Nobel Prize winner’ and the epitome of virtue, this outcome leaves not only Michael Mann, but the climate science community in crisis. Mann has always been a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics who called him out for fakery.
But it gets worse for the litigious Michael Mann. Close behind Dr. Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against Mann’s Washington DC SLAPP suit and claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr. Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann.
But at a time of clamor about ‘fake news’, it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr. Ball and endorsed the revelations in Ball’s book. Mann reacted by moaning:
“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”
The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr. Mann utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.
There can be little doubt that upon the court in Canada ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, then over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will be under intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.
With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is just as determined to win in court again as he faces a similar libel lawsuit served against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

New Zealand Tour Commentary
On that case Tim reports:
“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”
As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:
“Regardless of the outcomes, I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats: I was qualified and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for art students for 25 years.”
Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr. Ball concluded:
“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people like [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”
Dr. Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts capable of critically examining claims made by so-called ‘experts’ where they impact public policy.
To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this noble cause. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.

Read more from Dr. Ball at his website: drtimball.comBuy on Amazon Dr. Tim Ball’s ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.