Today I’m chatting with published astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe. Hilton is just one of those people who makes life infinitely interesting. No matter what question I have, he takes the time to *put things into perspective* for me, and he’s rather lovely. I’m pleased my path crossed his last year, and that we’ve maintained contact…  let’s talk books, space, and big bangs (the innuendo in that is endless)…

Poppet • • •    looks to Hilton…

• The Virtue of Heresy: That’s quite a title – care to explain it?

The full title of my first book is “The Virtue of Heresy – Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer”. It has nothing to do with religion. Science progresses by being challenged. The history of organised knowledge has been characterised by periods – I suppose we might even call them dynasties – during which a prevailing dogma has held sway, and this has always meant the suppression of dissent. For example, the regime that promoted the Earth-centred Universe ruled science and society for about 2,000 years. It has invariably been the efforts of a few resolute individuals, the heretics that brought about regime change described as a paradigm shift by Thomas Kuhn. We owe the ongoing development of true science entirely to the efforts of those few dissidents like Copernicus and Galileo who risked their lives to challenge the orthodoxy, hence “the virtue of heresy”. My book puts that into a contemporary idiom, focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on insidious repression of dissent by a clique promoting Big Bang Theory in cosmology.

• Now, you have released your latest book, *The Static Universe* – that alone to me feels like a contradiction. Static implies, “unchanging” – is this what the title is insinuating?

The full title of the book is “The Static Universe – Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion”. The term “static” has a specific meaning when used in astrophysics, quite different from the meaning it has in natural English. It means “non-expanding”, not “standing still”. This is part of standard terminology in the field, and I explain it early on in the book, and again in the glossary. It’s interesting to note that from far enough away, the perception of relative motion disappears. The distant stars appear fixed on the sky, yet they are in reality moving around at hundreds of kilometres per second relative to one another. It’s called an “observer effect”.

• I have to argue with you (sorry I have to) – when you say this after arguing Galileo’s theory – you say: Mathematics does not exist in nature. It is contained absolutely and entirely in the human mind—which of course, by my definition, is an unnatural place! I absolutely have to disagree – how can you explain chemical bonding then? Without numbers (mathematics) how would we build sound structures? – Or measure ingredients to bake a cake? I personally feel that mathematics is the only language which cannot be manipulated or corrupted – and yet you say it doesn’t exist in nature – but it has to, because we are all just atoms bonding – our own bodies are a mass of firing neurons and chemicals inducing impulses. Hilton, you have to explain that preposterous statement. – Or you are being cunning and calling the human mind *alone* unnatural? – which would lead to a whole new debate about the theory of *mind*…

No, there’s nothing cunning about it. Mathematics is a language, a way of describing things in nature using symbols, quantities and units of measure. It’s just fancy arithmetic. Like any language, it doesn’t exist in nature, it’s simply a mental construct used by human beings to communicate ideas. Thus, we may say that you and I are about 500km apart, but go and look at the road, at the earth and the rocks and the trees. There are no kilometres there. It’s in our minds only, but it helps us to agree on certain properties of the world about us. The same is true for chemical bonding or suspension bridges or the Fibonacci curves of spiral galaxies – not one of them contains mathematics, but may be usefully described by mathematics in its role as an efficient international language. Note that I do not say that mathematics is not useful, in fact it’s essential in science. But it should be a tool, not an argument for some esoteric higher truth. Read chapter ten (or chapter nine in the 3rd edition), “The Haquar Monologue”. The idea is developed there without a single equation!

I have to chuckle when you say “mathematics is the only language which cannot be manipulated or corrupted”. How wrong you are! (Bang goes my concept ) Black Hole theory and Big Bang theory are both gross corruptions and manipulations of the field equations of the General Theory of Relativity. In The Static Universe I devote a chapter to the question of space curvature, probably the greatest corruption of mathematics ever conceived. The fact that analysts solving the equations in these fields come to so many mathematically legitimate but opposing conclusions tells us that mathematics has the limitations of any language – it cannot express truth in an immutable way. Cosmology is ruled by no more than preference, certainly not by some eternal truth revealed unambiguously by mathematical formalism.

• Okay – let’s get to the nitty gritty here – who is Hilton? And what drew you to authoring books?

I grew up in rural Zululand, with a physicist father, an astronomer grandfather, and a musician mother, under a brilliant unpolluted sky. My dad would read to us every evening from books like “Jock of the Bushveld”, and would quote from Gray’s Elegy before supper in lieu of grace. How could I not have ended up where I am? It was pre-ordained. I was infused with a love of language (including mathematics and isiZulu) from the time I was born, and absolutely everything was done to some kind of musical sound track. So, Hilton is an astrophysicist and mathematician with a love of prose, rhythm, melody, and harmony, and he sees nature through those eyes.

•

• Where are your books available? (And what’s this I hear about a trip abroad to promote the newest one?)

They are both available on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Hilton+Ratcliffe&x=15&y=17

                                                                                                                                                                              With Prof Steve Wainwright and Sir Patrick Moore                     in the study at “Farthings”. Steve is a professor of medicine at Swansea University, and Patrick has 7 (yes, SEVEN) doctorates! Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants! We spent all night talking about cosmological DNA. It’s certainly out there somewhere!

Yes, I have just returned from a globally-cooled UK where I stayed with legendary British Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore. It was awesome. I visited him first in 2007 following his positive review of The Virtue of Heresy (you can read the story under “Articles” on my  website) and he suggested that I should write a book called The Static Universe. I was already two-thirds of the way through a follow-up to Heresy, and was initially about as enthusiastic as drunk fowl. He was right (he usually is) and a few weeks ago I went over there again to thank him and celebrate his 87th birthday. He’s physically a broken man, but mentally – wow! What a mentor to have.

• What is it like being an astrophysicist?

Very sexy! (laughs!)

• Do you ever walk through the mall and think – my IQ is higher than yours? Or do you feel that IQ is overrated?

No I don’t. Not in a mall. Most of my time in malls is spent planning my escape. Yes the whole thing about IQs is muddy. Is it a measure of intelligence, or perhaps something else? What is intelligence? How is that distinct from being a proficient advocate? I know people who can “win” any argument they get into, but they are not necessarily intelligent, and almost always have no respect for the truth. So morality comes into it somewhere. I was taken out of my comfort zone in standard 5 when our IQs were done and put into a “gifted child” programme that all but ruined me academically. The fact that I went on to achieve a measure of success in a mentally challenging arena of science is despite that IQ-mania, not because of it. In any case, it was really just a test of my mathematical skills, that is, the ability to see patterns, and nothing to do with my understanding of nature.

• What do you do for fun? Or is your life mostly conducted looking into a magnifying lens?

Interaction with nature. I do a great deal of naked-eye observing – of celestial objects, of birds, of trees, of termites, of crystals, of exotic motor cars. Driving well engineered vehicles is my most enduring and rewarding hobby. I read a lot. I do photography. And I write. Oh, and don’t forget music. Music is a very big deal for me. One last thing – I derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from dissing pseudo-science. Anthropogenic Global Warming and 2012 Doomsday are current favourites.

 • You have looked through the biggest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere – what was that experience like? The waiting list is endless – yet a little birdie told me – you just had to flash that irresistible IQ – and you were granted passage – do tell!

No, there’s nothing sinister about my visits to Sutherland. I am part of the space science community, and despite my unorthodox views, am still respected as such. I have friends who are professional astronomers attached to the SAAO (South African Astronomical Observatory) and can generally get access to the inner sanctum. Of course, I didn’t get observation time (although in principle I could). To be granted observation time, that is, dictate where the instrument should be pointed to acquire images for research, is naturally enough a very difficult thing to achieve, but it’s not impossible! For my purposes as an astrophysicist, the data obtained from orbiting observatories is enough to keep me out of mischief. This last trip, I was there during the day and just played with that magnificent R300-million toy. Wow!

• My Mum wants to know how old you are and when she can date you? (laughs)

Oh crap! I’m 60 . I have a girlfriend (well, a friend with benefits) but I’m free on Tuesday. (much chuckling)

• I’m going to veer off topic of your books briefly – to ask you a question that plagues one of my friends. He’s been watching the phenomenon known as *The Big Wobble* around the sun in our solar system, since 2007. – This is apparently – disc shaped *things* moving around the sun – physics dictates that anything that close – would surely disintegrate – yet these objects have been seen by a number of telescopes around the world – for a number of years – does the scientific community have an explanation for these things? (as I feel that there must be a basic, scientific – logical explanation for it)

Oh crap again! Refer to my previous comment about pseudo science and my mantras in the next answer. The Big Wobble refers specifically to a theory of aliens, and that’s just horse dung. I can’t go into detail here, but bear two things in mind: One, the centre-of-mass (known as the barycentre) of the Sun shifts fairly randomly within the orb of the Sun itself, and results in a complex set of physical wobbles throughout the Solar System, but most obviously near the Sun (eg, the precession of Mercury’s perihelion); two, the Sun and all stars and systems of stars are to some significant extent electromagnetic phenomena (refer to the chapter “A Twist in the Tale” in The Virtue of Heresy). The biggest structure in the Solar System is an electromagnetic plasma sheet. The Sun has an electrical potential with respect to surrounding space of a billion volts. There is copious geological evidence of electrical arcing in all Solar System bodies studied in surface detail (eg striations and lines of mini-craters that the nutters say are caused by alien warships). Bottom line: We’ve got enough real stuff to keep us mystified without this kind of dark and mysterious nonsense.

• What do you tell yourself on bad days? When the world gets you down – do you have a winning formula or mantra?

Keep it real. No hocus-pocus. Emotion is wonderful and therapeutic unless you wallow in it. I’m REALLY small. In an infinite Universe, we will always be infinitely more ignorant than we are wise. Cats rock!

(yes they do)

• What’s your favourite food?

Varies with my mood and what I ate last. A good English breakfast is right up there. Fish. Vegetables, raw or hardly cooked. Brown rice. Scrambled eggs. Ice cream. Pies. Apple tart. Prawn curry. Grilled pepper-lemon calamari. Mealie meal porridge with peanut butter. Tea and scones. Buttermilk rusks and Horlicks.

•

• Tell me your take on the Big Bang Theory

An incredibly complex mathematical theory that has no basis at all in reality. Creationism without God (unless man is god). The ultimate impossible theory of A to Z evolution. Prevailing dogma, the paradigm about to shift.

• What is it you would like the world to remember you for?

An uncompromising desire for truth, independent of any model or subjective opinion.

• What would you like the people you’ve known, to remember you for?

Well, I’m trying to be a decent person, so I guess if I succeed, people will include in their cocktail of memories of me that I was sincere and honest to a large degree.

• If you could change one thing in this world – what would it be?

That animals eat other animals. Cruelty appals me.

• Do you have an *idol* – a person who’s inspired you – or someone whose magnificence simply humbles you – and you can’t help feeling – one day – I’d like to be just like that?

Gautama the Buddha.

• And… what is your ideal gift? (I’ve always wondered what sort of gifts astrophysicists like to unwrap on Christmas morning)

Books. Washburn D10SNSK steel-string acoustic guitar. BMW R1200GS. 20” Meade reflector. Love.

Hilton, thank you so much for this – it’s been great fun. I really enjoyed what I read of-  “The Virtue of Heresy” – it’s a fun read, which is fascinating, informative, and really not what I expected. You blow the boring badge into smithereens. Good luck with both books …

 http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-13886-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m4d14-InterviewSouth-African-astrophysicist-Dr-Hilton-Ratcliffe-the-Sun-and-how-it-drives-our-climate

 A few years ago I was introduced to Hilton Ratcliffe by a mutual friend. He had published a book, “The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer”. The book held me fascinated as it debunked many of the dogma that infiltrated the scientific lexicon. He disassembled each so-called theory, actually unproven hypotheses, in a calm scientific manner. He now has a new book and I can’t wait to read it. The video attached was taken in Durban South Africa and the responses by the local dog population to the animals in the African bush were a nuisance. It didn’t stop him from making his point in a very professional manner. The segment was broadcasted on African TV.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FZZxzB9-Qg

I hope you enjoy it. Dr. Ratcliffe has agreed to an interview and I have received the final responses today so without further ado, lets begin.

Kirt G: Were those dogs barking in the background or some wild African beast?

Hilton: That was a dog, but it was barking at a wild creature (vervet monkey). We had to stop and re-take several times because of wild animal sounds coming from the bush.

Kirt G: Could you tell us a little about yourself and maybe comment on your new book?

Hilton: Although I do research on the Sun, my work does not relate directly to terrestrial weather. I’m simply trying to establish a physical description of celestial phenomena and systems as far as physics can reach into space, and that’s not very far. My interest in the AGW debacle stems from a realization that it is the product of the same sociological and psychological factors as Big Bang Theory, with the caveat that AGW is easier to falsify scientifically. My hope therefore was that in helping to bring global dogma like AGW down, I would eventually, by analogy, provide some basis upon which to bring about freedom of astrophysics and astronomy from the grip of standard-model-mania.

My second book is entitled “The Static Universe - Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion” and was written at the express suggestion of my patron, eminent British observational astronomer Sir Patrick Moore . The word “static” has a non-standard meaning in astrophysical usage, and refers specifically to non-expansion on the universal scale. The book is in the main a summary of observational evidence which is anomalous in terms of the expansion (LCDM) model, but includes also a chapter on the mathematical origin of the notion of systematic expansion and non-Euclidean curvature. The work assumes some familiarity with physical science and astronomy, but avoids rigorous mathematics altogether. It is available from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Hilton+Ratcliffe&x=15&y=17

Kirt G: You mentioned in the interview that the effect of the Sun on our planet’s climate is well established. The IPCC, Al Gore and others are adamant that it can’t be the Sun simply because the solar irradiance, also known as the solar constant, does not vary more than .1% over the 11 year solar cycle. Aren’t they missing some key points regarding this solar parameter?

Hilton: They are. Solar irradiance, measured as photon flux, has indeed remained 99.9% constant since we had the technology to measure it accurately. But the flow of light between Sun and Earth is only part of the picture. There are electricity, magnetism, Solar Wind, low energy cosmic rays, and gravitation flowing variably between the two bodies (actually, between all baryonic bodies as far as I can tell). These all have an influence on ambient conditions on Earth, and also, more importantly, on how the Earth utilizes the photon flux. All of this is expressed locally at the surface of the Earth as weather, and generally, as climate.

Kirt G: There has been much discussion about magnetic intensity on the Sun, and relative to the sunspots which are normally highly magnetic. Throw in the changing polarity every solar cycle and the relationship to the Earth’s magnetic polarity and you have a fairly complex system. How do you see this as it relates to our climate?

Hilton: Yes, magnetism is a big player, but I’m not sure exactly how or how much. We have a technique (the Zeeman Effect) to measure magnetic field strength remotely, but it doesn’t really map the magnetic connection very usefully. The flipping of magnetic polarity on both Sun and Earth doesn’t appear to be very influential. Bear in mind that the Sun has several magnetic poles simultaneously, so it’s quite different in that respect from Earth. I would say that magnetism channels electricity, and we can see the effects of that. Beyond that, as far as I know, we are into conjecture.

Kirt G: The late Drs. Fairbridge and Landscheidt as well as Richard Mackey, who is a member of our “It’s the Sun” solar discussion forum, have made much of the planetary influence on the variations between solar cycles. Mackey refers to the solar orbit as epitrochoid shaped. According to one of his latest papers we are heading into a small loop, characterized by a cooling period. How do you see this as it relates to our climate?

Hilton: Thanks to Richard Mackey, I am familiar with Fairbridge’s work, and have long known about Landscheidt. As far as measurable results are concerned, the most important, strongest interaction in baryonic macro systems is gravitation. Unfortunately, classical mechanics views gravitation as a 2-body interaction, with the fuzz coming from “perturbations”. Non-trivial 3rd party influences are not properly taken into account, resulting in omissions incorrectly described as anomalies. In this respect, the formalism of General Relativity (tensors - collections of vectors with a unified output – in a scalar field) is far superior to the Newtonian system. However, GRT can get the right answer for the wrong reasons, for example the precession of Mercury’s perihelion. I mention this because finding the effect of gravitational fluctuations on any system is going to some degree depend, under current scientific constraints, upon how we actually measure gravitation. We are further confounded by the fact that epitrochoid orbits are intrinsically random. As far as climate is concerned (I use the word “climate” with reservation) we are, in my opinion, not so much influenced by gravitational wobbles as by the angle of the rotational axis, which is what gives us our seasons. The orbital path of Earth is understood to be a mean constant ellipse over geologic time. As long as the axis inclination remains fairly fixed, our “climate” (represented by smoothed global temperatures) won’t vary much as a result of relatively small gravitational wobbles. I’m just not comfortable taking a purely statistical approach to climate change, although I do believe Dr Mackey gives us a compelling and novel approach to unravelling the mechanics of the Solar System. Unfortunately, Dr Landscheidt was, despite his wonderful grasp of physics, also an astrologer, and that needs to be borne in mind when evaluating his ideas on planetary influences. Having said that, caution is needed: We would be well advised not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like Tom Van Flandern and the “face” on Mars (about which we argued many long hours), sometimes we just need to accept that many brilliant scientists have mental glitches, and we are better advised to step back and look at the bigger picture. Dr Landscheidt’s prediction of the Landscheidt Minimum circa 2030 is given credibility by his accurate prediction of sunspot minima commencing 1990. The problem is, we don’t know what sunspots are in any detail, or their connection to energy production within the Sun. There is some evidence that sunspots are caused externally, by incoming cosmic rays falling on the Sun, much as cosmic rays appear to influence the formation of temperature and precipitation bowls on Earth.

Kirt G: One of the great debates in solar investigation is whether the Galactic Cosmic Rays or the Solar wind is having the majority of the effect on the Earth’s climate. Piers Corbyn says it is the solar wind. What do you think?

Hilton: Quite honestly, I don’t know. There are also (low energy) solar cosmic rays in the mix. A detector in the vicinity of Earth will measure all the stuff flying through it, regardless of source. We can of course deduce a lot from angle of attack but much of our classification is model-dependent. There is an overlap between the two as far as components are concerned. The Solar Wind is charged particles (electrons and protons), accelerated outwards by electro-magnetic fields in the corona. Cosmic rays are also just streams of particles, which despite the various names are mostly just protons, alpha particles, and electrons resulting from ionization. Photoionisation and spallation in interstellar space change the form and type of the particles passing through, and charged particles are accelerated to higher energies by plasma. It’s very difficult to determine what’s happening at source by examining only the destination end of a process.

Kirt G: Given the relative inactivity of the Sun in the small loops, not to mention traveling at ½ speed, of the epitrochoid orbit and the high activity in the large radius loops, some see this as evidence the Sun is not a homogeneous ball of hydrogen. Do you have a position?

Hilton: Definitely. How could it possibly be a ball of hydrogen? How would a diffuse cloud of gas, dust, and rocks settle gravitationally so that the very lightest element on the periodic table settles exclusively to form the nucleus? The planetary bodies we have examined fairly thoroughly so far give us the basis upon which to make an educated guess about how it works. A physical body that settles to hydrostatic equilibrium sorts itself by mass, with the heaviest elements tending to the centre of the sphere. The highest density is at the middle. Galaxies are a good example. If the heavy elements accumulate sufficiently, they can in some cases hold a gaseous atmosphere around their periphery, and this is obviously the case with the Sun. Although it presents as a light fluid (plasma) it is reasonable to suppose that beneath the photosphere (H + He mostly) we would find heavier elements arranged by increasingly turbid viscosity towards the centre. This idea is strongly supported by Oliver Manuel’s nuclide analysis of material found traveling around in the Solar System, which suggests that the system acts as a mass fractionator, and that in turn also gives a good explanation for the protons and electrons in the Solar Wind - they would result from the fissioning of neutrons in the fractionation process. We should not overlook the fact that in addition to anything else going on there, there is ionisation of atmospheric H and He, as well as electromagnetic plasma activity and nuclear fusion at the footpoints of coronal arches. It’s a broad mix of effects. Whatever it was that seeded the gravitational accretion of 98% of the Solar System’s mass into a single, central orb - I favour a fragment of neutron star from the progenitor supernova - it is no doubt still there, being slung around in a thick liquid by the complex m1 - m2 interactions of all the orbiting bodies. The shifting barycentre of the Sun would indeed cause the kind of behaviour we observe.

Kirt G: Another point on the epitrochoid orbit is that one small loop and one section of a large radius loop encompass approximately 60 years which many see as the period of a warming and cooling cycle on Earth. Piers Corbyn has found a cycle of the same length in the activity of the Sun “beat” against the lunar cycle as he presented at the 2009 Heartland Climate Conference. Others in our forum have also cited the 60 year period defined in this way. Paul Vaughn, commented that I should be careful in discounting the effect of the Moon on our climate. Any thoughts on which it is and the relative merits of each position? Certainly the Moon doesn’t affect the orbit of the Sun!

Hilton:  As I understand gravitation, the Moon does affect the orbit of the Sun but only trivially so. The interaction between the Moon and the Earth is profound and so synergistic that I should be very surprised if it does not have a significant effect on the weather. However, I have not personally investigated either phenomenon quantitatively, so I cannot really comment on relative merits. What I can say is that these causal influences are not mutually exclusive. We have a cocktail of influences and we should not ignore any of them. Of course, there is also electricity, the Orphan Annie of celestial physics. I am a physicist with a one-plus-one-equals-two approach to physical science and try not to get too far ahead of the factual base. If I may, I’d like to recommend the book “Evolution of the Solar System” by Hannes Alfven and Gustaf Arrhenius (University Press of the Pacific, 2005).

Kirt G: I spent some time one evening talking to John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, at the first Heartland climate conference. The discussion was relative to the lorry (bus) driver in the UK who led a high court to find there were 9 errors in the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” that was being shown to English schoolchildren. If Al Gore is being “naughty” do you feel he should be prosecuted as Lord Monckton suggested in the interview with Mark Gillar recently on Global Cooling Radio?

Hilton: Without trying too hard, I found 35 fundamental “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. The word “errors” is in quotation marks because it is inconceivable to me that these falsehoods could all have been inadvertent. Some or possibly all were put there to deceive the viewer. There appears to have been money gained by Mann, Gore and Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud. If proven in a court of law, they should be heavily punished and their ill-gotten assets confiscated and put to the benefit of mankind. (One should not exclude Strong and Hansen on this. Hansen was the technical guy on AIT - KCG)

I would like to thank Dr. Ratcliffe for taking the time to answer my questions. I really hope that these explanations can convince some out there who have been taken in by all the hype that there are reasoned people out there with the knowledge to know the truth and are not intimidated. It has been through my associations with people like Hilton Ratcliffe that I have been able to learn about the Sun, how it works and its effect on our climate. I am sure that Hilton would be willing to answer reasonable questions posted in the comments section. I haven’t cleared that with him, but I suspect he won’t mind.

Dear Malcolm,

Thank you most sincerely for your response last month to my April 2009 Breaking News column in Ndaba. I wish more of our readers would express their views and exchange ideas. I fear though that objectivity may be on thin ice here (pun unintended) because we both, by our own admission, engage for ethical reasons in what is clearly an emotionally-charged conflict of ideals. We clearly have some common purpose at the outset: We are both greatly concerned about progressive harm to ecology and species; and we agree that global warming and dynamic climate change are real. Let’s take it from there. What I say is that there is nothing historically unusual about current global temperatures. Global warming and global cooling are periodic. They are perfectly natural peaks and valleys in cycles driven primarily by the Sun. There are no data to support the hypothesis that greenhouse gases, whether human-related or not, drive climate fluctuations. This is a story of how an unsubstantiated theory of climate, a model, became political ideology.

To clarify, AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming (meaning, increase in the mean temperature of Earth as a result primarily of human activities), CO2 is carbon dioxide, and IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In view of the constraints of this forum, my initial response won’t attempt to address in detail the main points in your letter, although I must admit to being completely baffled by your statement that my argument “fails totally on one salient point: only a tiny minority – 1 in 1000 – of scientific publications on global warming dispute the influence of human activities in affecting climate change.” Even if Dr Schultze’s figures were correct, and notwithstanding that I dispute them, how would that invalidate my general argument? Science is not about consensus, and I mentioned the fact that those against the motion appeared for once to be in the majority only as a sociological curiosity. Certainly, history shows that opposition to ruling paradigms consists invariably of extremely small minorities with limited chance for expression, and the reasons for this I should think are fairly obvious. That we in this case find numerically more substantial opposition than previously is borne out by even the most cursory scan of the broader literature (journals are notoriously standard-model-biased). In my view, the best single reference on the quality of opposition to AGW is The Deniers—the world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud by Lawrence Solomon (2008).

Be that as it may, global temperature patterns; the demise of polar bears; the effect of greenhouse gases; the proportion of publications expressing doubt about carbon-driven AGW; that “the end justifies the means”; and the personal culpability of Al Gore in misleading the public and governments, could all be exhaustively debated with copious references to the literature on both sides. We simply don’t have the space to do that here. In your letter you invoke the authority of respected scientists, so I prefer in my response to let other prominent role-players in the AGW saga express it in their own words. What I suggest is that we let the facts fall where they will, irrespective of any model or ideology. That way we can avoid a preconceived outcome.

In my view, before we even start to make predictions for the planet, we need good data to base them on. A crucial misrepresentation on plots of climate data is the selective positioning of the trend line and base line for plots (your illustration falls into this trap). If the curve commences from the previous low point for temperature (the Little Ice Age), for example, then the trend is obviously upwards. If, by comparison, the plot commences from say the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now, then the trend is equally obviously downwards. A recent paper by two eminent climatologists details the inaccuracies and massaging of IPCC’s global temperature measurements, like those supporting the graph in your letter and conclusions drawn from it. I urge you to look at it:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

There are many complex issues that might sidetrack us, so let’s tackle the fundamental principle of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) movement first. The rest can follow in due time. The question I seek to answer here is “What do these particular experts in the field of climatology feel about the hypothesis that human production of atmospheric carbon or greenhouse gases in general measurably leads to increases in global temperatures and influences weather patterns to the extent that we are experiencing or are about to experience catastrophic overheating?”I believe this question correctly addresses the philosophy behind the IPCC-driven mission, and the essence of the Kyoto protocol and Copenhagen road map.

Arno Arrak, author of the book What Warming? Satellite view of global climate change; he was a nuclear chemist on NASA’s Apollo programme: “In 2007 we got some serious cooling while climate models using carbon dioxide theory insisted on relentless warming at the same time. If a theory predicts warming and we get cooling that theory as a scientific theory has failed and must be abandoned.”

Professor John Christy, lead author, IPCC; awarded NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991; received a special award from the American Meteorological Society for fundamentally advancing our ability to measure climate: “I’ve often heard it said that there is consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist—and there are many—who thinks that this is simply not true.”

Lord Lawson of Blaby, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary for Energy: “We had a very thorough enquiry and took evidence from a whole lot of people expert in this area. What surprised me was how weak and uncertain the science was. In fact there are more and more thoughtful people…some of them openly saying, ‘hang on, wait a minute, this simply doesn’t add up.’”

Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore    , co-founder of Greenpeace: “I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement any more because it really is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level… These days if you are sceptical of the litany around climate change, you’re suddenly as if you’re like a holocaust denier.”

Nigel Calder, author and former editor of New Scientist: “They (the IPCC) came out with the first big report which predicted climatic disaster as a result of global warming. I remember…the total disregard of all climate science up till that time, including, incidentally, the role of the Sun, which had been discussed at a conference of the Royal Society just a few months previously.”

Professor Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Science, University of Virginia: “Anyone who says that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming of the 20^th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.”

Dr Tim Ball, professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg: “The analogy I use is that my car is not running very well, so I ignore the engine, which is the Sun, and I’m going to ignore the transmission, which is water vapour, and I’m going to be looking at one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human-produced CO2. The science is that bad. When people say you don’t believe in global warming, I say no, I believe in global warming, but I don’t believe that human CO2 is causing that warming. In the post-war years, when industry and the economies of the world really got going and human production of CO2 just soared, the global temperature was going down. In other words, the facts don’t fit the theory.”

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre, Alaska: “CO2 began to rise exponentially in about 1940, but temperature began to decrease (in) 1940 and continued to about 1975. So this is the opposite relation, when CO2 is increasing rapidly, but yet temperature is decreasing— then we cannot say the CO2 and the temperature go together.”

Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg: “If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere…it’s about 0.054%. It’s an incredibly small portion. And then you take the percentage that humans are supposedly adding, which is the focus of all the concern, and it gets even smaller. The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage, 95% is water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas.”

Professor Richard Lindzen, M.I.T.: “Every textbook on meteorology is telling you the main source of weather disturbances is the temperature differences between tropics and the poles. And we’re told, in a warmer world, this difference gets less. Now that would tell you, you will have less storminess, less variability…”

Professor Frederick Singer, First Director, US National Weather Satellite Service. “All the models, every one of them, calculate that the warming should be faster as you go up from the surface into the atmosphere. In fact, the maximum warming over the equator should take place at an altitude of about 10km.”

Professor John Christy, lead author, IPCC: “What we found consistently was that in a great part of the planet, the bulk of the atmosphere was not warming as much as the surface…that’s a real head-scratcher for us…the theory says that if the surface warms, the upper atmosphere should warm rapidly. The rise in temperature of that part of the atmosphere is really not very dramatic and really does not match the theory that climate models are expressing.”

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “If it’s greenhouse warming, you get more warming in the middle of the troposphere, the first 10 to 12 km of the Earth’s atmosphere, than you do at the surface…having to do with how the greenhouse works. That data gives you a handle on the fact that what we’re seeing is warming that is probably not due to greenhouse gases.”

Professor Frederick Singer: “The observations do not show an increase with altitude. So in a sense you can say the hypothesis of man-made global warming is falsified by the evidence.”

Dr Ian Clark, Arctic paleoclimatologist, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “If we look at climate in the geological timeframe, we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. We can’t say CO2 will drive climate. It never did in the past. When we look at climate on long scales, we’re looking for geological material that actually records climate. If we take an ice sample for example, we use isotopes to reconstruct temperature, but the atmosphere that’s imprisoned in the ice we liberate and then we look at the CO2 content. … So, here we are looking at the ice core record from Vostok … we see temperature going up from early time to later time at a very key interval when we came out of a-glaciation … and then we see CO2 coming up. CO2 lags behind that increase, it’s got about an 800 year lag, so temperature is leading CO2 by about 800 years. CO2 cannot be causing temperature changes. It’s a product of temperature, it is following temperature changes.”

Professor Frederick Singer: “So obviously CO2 is not the cause of that warming, in fact we can say that the warming produced the CO2.”

Professor Tim Ball: “The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here. They said that if CO2 increases in the atmosphere…then the temperature will go up. But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.”

Dr Ian Clark, University of Ottawa: “Solar activity over the last … several hundred years correlates very nicely on a decadal basis with sea ice and arctic temperatures.”

Professor Phillip Stott, University of London: “As every school child knows from their geography textbooks, the oceans and the atmosphere exchange carbon dioxide. When the oceans warm up, they release CO2 into the atmosphere, and when they cool down again, they take in the CO2 and they store it.”

Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “A few years ago, if you would ask me, I would tell you it’s CO2. Why? Because like everyone else in the public, I listened to what the media had to say. There were periods in the Earth’s history when we had … ten times as much CO2 as we have today, and if CO2 has an effect on climate, then you should see it in the temperature reconstruction. There’s no direct evidence that links 20^th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”

To conclude this first exchange of thoughts, I emphasise that the ice core records show that temperature leads CO2, effectively ruling out anthropogenic carbon emissions as a driver of global temperature. In addition, measurements of temperatures in the troposphere by both satellite and weather balloon contradict the notion of a runaway greenhouse effect. Despite the elegance of the climate models, they are rendered useless by cumulative and ongoing measurements of actual conditions in the terrestrial environment, and by the exposing of unethical manipulation of those data to contrive a fit. At the very least, the claim by Gore and others that “the science is settled” is blatantly misleading and totally unsubstantiated by the facts. Does the end justify the means? I hope this dialogue survives to provide an answer.

Sincerely,

Hilton

Email: hilton@hiltonratcliffe.com

The quotes in this letter were taken from the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, produced by Martin Durkin (2008), and the books What Warming? Satellite view of global climate change by Arno Arrak (2009); A primer on CO2 and Climate by Howard Hayden (2008); Global Warming False Alarm by Ralph Alexander (2009); The Deniers—the world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud by Lawrence Solomon (2008); Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner; Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer (2008), and Air Con by Ian Wishart (2009).

Honestly, I had mixed feelings about this production. There is no question that it is technically excellent as a movie, and makes its point with both vigour and subtlety, but as a scientist seeking the truth, I don’t like the style of presentation at all - “Methinks they protesteth too much!” It definitely doesn’t let the facts stand in the way of a good cry.

Right at the beginning, we meet the alpine climber who, in his 80s, laments global warming. Pretty soon his eyes glisten with tears, and the scene of barren rock where the Chamonix ski slope should have been is overlaid with “Here at Chamonix, it’s December and there’s no snow at all. It’s a glimpse into the future.” I don’t know when that scene was shot, but in 2008 and 2009 there was record snowfall at Chamonix, so heavy in fact that for most of December both years skiing was considered dangerous. The bias is painful.

Then we have the chap who was overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. He too had tears in his eyes as he told of rescuing a baby from the rising waters. Then we have a TV presenter laying the blame: “Intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperatures. So increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming.” What utter nonsense! There is no connection whatsoever. Hurricane intensity as far as we know is most likely related to polarity, both of the electromagnetic sheath vortex, and of the differential in temperature between the basin beneath the axis of spin (warm) and surrounding water (cold). Another factor is wind shear above warm spots, which actually weakens hurricanes. It has nothing to do with global warming. Also, the catastrophe in New Orleans was not the result of an abnormally fierce hurricane, but because of that city’s below-sea-level vulnerability and dependence on poorly constructed and maintained levees. The incidence and strength of hurricanes in 2006, as well as their landfall percentage, were well below average. The figures are freely available. Was that caused by global warming?

So I didn’t get off to a good start with this movie, but heck, I stuck it out. Well, it didn’t get better. The images of poverty and disease, corruption and barbarism, of millions struggling for food are emotionally deeply compelling. It certainly makes me sad to see evidence of the human and environmental conditions that result from the greed and megalomania of individuals who exert physical dominance over their tribes. But how on Earth is human nature a consequence of man-made climate change? Where does global warming fit in? And how will carbon caps alleviate mass hunger and endemic disease; how could massive industrial rollbacks possibly increase production so the hungry can eat? The Niger Delta scenes are such a mixed message. Corrupt, power-mad people will opportunistically use whatever currency is to hand—witness Gore’s use of AGW—whether it is opium poppies in Afghanistan or oil in Nigeria, it’s just what the Earth offers up in a particular region. We have to deal with human population pressure. We can’t just say “It’s their fault for having children so let them suffer.” It’s energy consumption versus output productivity. The granaries of the world use more energy and produce more food. It seems to me the Age of Stupid belongs to a school of thought and an ideology that is really just anti-capitalist when you boil it down, and we’ve seen how well those schemes have worked in the past. What we really need to do is let pragmatism rein in this rampant idealism. We have a job to do.

The aim of this movie as I understand it, its central message, is that we are corrupting the environment by our misuse of resources. I am wholeheartedly in support of that ethic. What I cannot tolerate is that blatantly false evidence is raised to create the popular impression that human activities control global temperatures, and that all environmental (and even many sociological) evils stem from this. The entire moral effort of a generation has been cunningly steered in a particular direction, and it has been infused with a self-satisfying moralistic anger that defies logic. While this is going on, Gore, Pachauri, and their henchmen are pocketing personal profits amounting to many millions of dollars. Our environmental conscience has been hijacked by greed of another persuasion, but greed it certainly is. This has been achieved by superbly crafted propaganda, and The Age of Stupid is perhaps the best of the lot.

By the time I reached the credits at the end of The Age of Stupid, I was as despondent as I would imagine most people are who are exposed to this sort of message. In my case though, I was most saddened by the power and effect of carefully constructed propaganda in determining, or at least reinforcing what people want to believe. It has nothing to do with the data or the measurements. An Inconvenient Truth presents 35 main scientific arguments to support Anthropogenic Global Warming. Guess how many were falsified by comparison with the measurements? 35! But pathetically few people who carry Gore’s banner ever bother to check his facts, and indeed, when faced with them, simply write them off as “denialism”. If we create a human desert in years to come—and we might—it will be because we put all our ecological effort into uselessly fighting carbon when all the while the real environmental issues, the ones that can really make a difference, are ignored. With our conscience appeased, we will go to sleep thinking we have done the right thing, and we may never wake up.

So I guess we are both depressed by what is going on. I just don’t see the moral justification in lying about it. I look forward to hearing your reaction to The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have the DVD if you’d like to organise a viewing.

Best wishes
Hilton

In this world as it is, there are far more pressing issues I would say. Like the Great Global Warming Swindle, for instance. From a sociological point of view, it is rich ground for contemplation. I didn’t want to get involved, but I have to; my social conscience won’t let me ignore the greatest scam - by orders of magnitude - ever perpetrated. When one looks at the sheer scale of the deception, it blows the mind - it’s now a multi-trillion dollar burglary, feeding without mercy on those scraps of decency that let Homo sapiens feel guilty about environmental hygiene and the way that we prey on and decimate other species. Chairman of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri has already pocketed (personally) millions of dollars, and he’s only just started. The head of this bloated fish is indeed rotten.

What’s the good news? The light at the end of the tunnel for me is that when climategate is eventually exposed, and we sheepishly admit that we’ve been horrendously duped, and we’ve guillotined whoever we’ve caught, perhaps broader society will have insight enough to the corruptions of power and greed, and the horrifying social tumours growing out of propaganda, to see that essentially, it is science and education that are corrupted. The walls of mathematical sophistry are all but impenetrable, and the $13,000,000,000 underground redoubt called the Large Hadron Collider is safe haven for those toying with the personal consequences of owning the Theory of Everything. “Playing God” is the ultimate fascination for man, and I use the gender term advisedly. It is utterly shameful that the unrepentant patriarch in the male of our species reduces us to this. Al Gore could never, ever have been a woman.

Outside the birds have woken, and the day beckons promisingly. I think that my emerging book “Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks” is going to be a deeply passionate expression of my environmental sadness. Perhaps we can forgive each other, eventually, but I fear that war is the usual panacea for a smoking soul. The Carbon Diaries are written in blood, and Gore’s surname is suddenly sickeningly prophetic.

Lord have mercy!

Breathe in, breathe out, look left and right, and step onto the highway…

Take it easy.
Hilton

Take an hour or so out of your life to watch this. It’s worth the trouble.
http://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=9SiB868VEFc

I’m an interested observer of this discussion, and look at it through the lens of physics (oh how I envy chemists that freedom to practice their art without strictures of meta-geometrical topology that afflict extra-terrestrial physics. Imagine if we tried to discuss chemical reactions in varying space curvatures).

For some years now, Oliver and I have collaborated on a Solar System model that aligns with conventional chemistry and physics rather than opposes them. Thus, we have an explosive progenitor in the form of an iron-rich supernova. Isotope sequences put that event at ~4.5GYA. That much is empirically verifiable, and is no longer controversial in the mainstream. What happens next is where physics and consensus depart each other.

How could the SN debris settle and accrete gravitationally so that the lightest element known, H, forms the nucleus of the nascent Solar System? How does iron float on hydrogen? It is clear, short of resorting to metaphysics, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basics of the Standard Solar Model, and that our spectral analysis of the photosphere cannot be representative of what lies beneath.

And that, in my view, is why we’re looking at other processes besides predominantly H fusion to satisfy the Sun’s energy requirements. The proposal of n-repulsion should be seen against the background of a physically sound, fundamentally secure solar model. That is the mistake that Eddington and Bethe fell prey to: They let their theory of energy production in stars dictate the chemical composition of stars, instead of the other way around.

All the best for Christmas and the New Year, however you choose to celebrate them.

With kind regards
Hilton

There’s a problem though. You see, SNe happen far less frequently than the old blue moon—about two observed per galaxy per century. That’s not nearly enough—by orders of magnitude—to account for stellar phenomena with anything approaching statistical significance. One per 50 years in a collection of a hundred billion stars isn’t going to do much in the bigger picture. But protagonists in the saga of expansion found a use for supernovae that quite exceeds the design parameters for exploding stars. They extracted from observational data a timescale warp in the fading glow of supernovae. Specifically, they targeted those supernovae known as Type 1A.

Convinced that they are standard candles, these devout women and men measured variability in time taken by 1A SNe to fade from their peak brilliance, and concluded with unseemly haste that the differences in apparent duration were not natural properties of varying explosive parameters, but indeed, the effect of expanding space. The idea behind it is that the “light curve”—the graphical plot of brightness varying with time—would be the same for all 1A supernovae if they were measured locally. Measured remotely from Earth, however, the light curves are not the same, and that is unacceptable for standard candles. Explanation: Because they lie at different cosmological distances, the variations in fade duration must be because of expanding spacetime, something known as “time dilation”. The immediate conclusion drawn from this interpretation is that all this proves universal expansion. What’s more, closer examination, subject to the necessary primary assumptions and fudge factors, indicated to an astonished scientific audience that the rate of expansion was increasing. The Universe, ladies and gentlemen, is accelerating away again. So they say…

The real issue here, as I understand it, is whether or not the universe is undergoing systematic expansion, and whether or not SNe rise times (the patterns caused by ebb and flow of luminosity) support that contention. Here’s the rub: Do the different light curves not tell us that 1A SNe are in fact not standard candles, and that they explode differently over time in each example? That is pretty much how we would normally interpret the observational data in the absence of an overriding theoretical model that tells us otherwise. Unless the progenitor stars of supernovae are geochemically and geophysically identical, we would expect each explosion to plot a unique course on a non-standard timeframe. No one can deny that observable debris fields left after supernovae are so different from one another in so many ways that to suggest the progenitors were all precisely alike is ludicrous. Here again, we are asked by cosmologists to abandon straightforward physics and analyse what we see and measure through their spectacles.

Do you get an inkling now how annoying that is for us?

In terms of standard physics, Hubble expansion related to cosmic redshift has failed, even after several restarts. We should not even bother trying to explain to ourselves and interested spectators the functions of expanding space, or how the rate of expansion varies at the convenience of our Standard Model. We need go no further than simply examining the pictures we get of the sky. Our observations show, with as much certainty as can be expected over cosmological distances, that the expected direct association of higher redshift with a more immature Universe has not materialised. Modelling the universe in onion-skin layers of redshift values fails dismally to show with greater redshift the least sign of higher density; smaller object size; higher temperature; lower metallicity (or higher metallicity); smaller voids; less apparent and intrinsic brightness; infant galaxies; or any other sign that redshift truly indicates remoteness and youth in an evolving Universe. To make matters truly embarrassing for the Standard Model of Cosmology, the redshift patterns that supposedly indicate and verify an expanding cosmos have been found in local space, well within the confines of Virgo. We all know that by consensus, theory excludes local space from expansion, so the signs in the sky are Judas goats, leading us to the nemesis of redshift-based cosmology.

In addition, given that the redshift of Hubble expansion goes hand-in-hand with the Cosmological Principle and cannot exist without it, it is of crucial importance that we note no smoothing out of the cosmos, no matter how high the redshift value. There is structure, great big lumps of it, for as far as we can see. The redshift distance ladder is obviously flawed, and with it our 3-D conception of cosmic geography. To top it all, some well presented observations show that there are objects that deny their redshift-given remoteness by the fact that their transverse expansion would then exceed the speed of light, many times over. That alone crushes the concept without hope of redemption. The redshift-expansion idea, despite the concerted efforts of the finest scientists on Earth to promote it, has failed.

What of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? Is it really a picture of a very dense, nascent Universe? I doubt it, and by now, I should hope that you doubt it too. The controversial “predictions” of BBT concerning an enveloping primeval radiation signature are hopelessly lacking in true predictive power, and in addition, quantitatively way off beam. Alignments with local astrophysical structure (and voids) are routinely confirmed by WMAP analysts. The CMBR was from the word go a hopelessly optimistic long shot. Analysts are kept busy, night and day, trying to cope with anomalies—that is, disagreements between the image and what is expected by the model. They have, despite great effort and inventiveness, thus far failed abysmally to get that obstinate, hee-hawing picture to fit the theory.

How we react to anomalous results is going to be crucial to the future of cosmology, the empirical foundation of astrophysics, and indeed, possibly the importance of scientists to the progress of society generally. The sincerity with which we incorporate discordant results into our knowledge base and theoretical structures will in my view define the relationship between astronomy and cosmology, and may well determine whether such a link can exist at all. The anomalies result always, and exclusively, from our comparison of the data with theoretical models. The data and images are not in and of themselves anomalous, and cannot be intrinsically peculiar. Professor Neta Bahcall puts it well: “The advantages of ‘What you see is what you get’ …may be more important than the elegance of the solution.” [1] Whether we continue to pursue the mysteries of the larger-scale cosmos with our eyes wide shut, or instead with due circumspection take notice of the measurable reality surrounding us, time will tell.

Let’s be honest. We are unable to measure the global physical divergence of galaxies. There is no unambiguous, empirically tested correlation of redshift velocity with distance. We cannot observationally verify a proposed universal geometry that would permit expansion. No deep sky survey has revealed evolution with time in astrophysical objects. An image of the primordial fireball (or any other deity) can only be seen in background radiation by express construction, and even then, through the rosiest of rose tinted spectacles. These things are best described as superstition, but we make no judgement on people who are superstitious; we merely try our damndest to separate them from rational science.

Our uncertainty is admittedly less with nearby things, but the incredible vastness of our field of study is such that even within the Solar System itself, we are unsure of most things. We don’t know with any clarity how big the Solar System is; what it consists of; or what keeps it going. Where did it come from, how did it form, and whither next? The same is true for the Local Group of galaxies. The caveat remains that they certainly show no measurable sign of the creation of spacetime within their boundaries. We must accept expansion with only the reputation of our forefathers to go on. “Thus it must be remembered that the whole argument is based on the idea that helium was made by such a fireball, and much as most people want to believe it there is no independent evidence that this ever did take place. Most of the helium was made in a big bang, and the parameters required are those chosen in the conventional model. This is the most popular view but in its present form it requires that we choose an initial photon/baryon ratio, invoke a ‘magical’ inflation era, and assume the presence of a large amount of dark nonbaryonic matter, and dark energy (creation energy). These are four assumptions for which we have no basic theory, nor direct observational evidence. Just authoritarian belief.”[2]

So, when all is said and done, it comes down to this: Is what we see relevant to the formulation of cosmology? To sustain a well-worn cliché—do we believe what we see, or see what we believe? It’s a choice really; one which will determine whether the status quo remains and dictates reality, or whether we do indeed live at the cusp of revolution. I am under no illusion; the odds against my preferred outcome are almost impossibly huge, but a light at the end of my tunnel is kept flickering by the knowledge that it has happened before, time and again. This regime must fall, that is certain, but when? Perhaps you, the few, will determine by what you do next what the outcome shall be.

I shall leave you with a quote from the essay Modern Cosmology, Science or Folk Tale by Professor Mike Disney: “It may be healthier, as well as more exciting, to admit we are surrounded by great mysteries which will provide challenges for generations to come. More fundamentally, as Daniel Boorstin the historian of science remarked: ‘The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses.’ If we are not appropriately sceptical about cosmology today then the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress across all of extragalactic research for generations to come. ”

Ultimately, perhaps, we have attempted to address in our book a single question, one that is supremely difficult to answer with conviction: Is the Universe expanding? We are baffled for one simple reason—by definition, the expansion described in the Standard Model of Cosmology occurs exclusively beyond the reach of measurement. If for no other reason than that, such a supposition should be excluded from the realm of reasonable science. 

Thank you for sharing this journey with me, and good luck to you.

In acknowledging my sources in The Static Universe, I paid tribute to the publicly-funded online science repository arXiv. The following paragraph was written before I was (quite rudely, I thought) blacklisted by arXiv. After a deal of sombre thought, I decided to leave it there, unchanged:

“It is about time that someone gave credit to the most-used reference set in the history of science: The well-worn Cornell University online library arXiv. Pronounced archive from the Greek letter Chi, arXiv currently stores about 500,000 scientific publications, with about 4,000 being added every month. Access is free and open, and it is the preferred point of reference for scientists seeking to refer to the work of others. What an outstanding service! Thank you so much, Cornell for administering it, and Paul Ginsparg for inventing it.”

That was said in all sincerity. I’m sure you will understand that I am somewhat more cynical about arXiv these days. It presents an imbalance—the absence of even a few of those who argue against the motion means that arXiv becomes the expression of a particular opinion, rather than a place where scientific results can be compared without let or hindrance.

Much of the brouhaha currently surrounding the online archive could be avoided if the moderators demonstrated courage in their convictions by declaring their agenda, and by giving reasons for rejecting submissions. They admit that only a few papers or authors are blocked, so it would not be an onerous task. All it would require is openness and honesty. Is that too much to ask of those who hold the power? To whom are they answerable? The moderators are protected from public scrutiny and accountability, and thereby make of themselves a secret society. No one denies the publishers of public media the right and the duty to maintain standards, but in this case (as in the classic case of Halton Arp) it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with personalities, politics, and childish vendettas. They can hide behind the mask of anonymity and blatantly practice ideological censorship with impunity. Here is what Nobel Laureate Louis de Broglie had to say: 

“The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice.  If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.  As a matter of fact, the battles waged, for example by Fresnel and by Pasteur suffice to prove that some of these pioneers ran into a lack of understanding from the side of eminent scholars which they had to fight with vigour before emerging as the winners.  More recently, in the domain of theoretical physics, of which I can speak with knowledge, the magnificent novel conceptions of Lorentz and Planck, and particularly Einstein also clashed with the incomprehension of eminent scientists.  The new ideas here triumphed; but, in proportion as the organization of research becomes more rigid, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will be unable to develop freely.

Let us state in a few words the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing. While, by the very force of circumstances, research and teaching are weighted down by administrative structures and financial concerns and by the heavy armature of strict regulations and planning, it becomes more indispensable than ever to preserve the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of initiative for the original investigators, because these freedoms have always been and will always remain the most fertile sources for the grand progress of science.”
The following quotation is taken from the website www.archivefreedom.org, co-founded by another Nobel Laureate, Brian Josephson (himself blacklisted by arXiv):

“The electronic preprint archive (arXiv.org), founded in 1991 at Los Alamos National Laboratories and funded by the National Science Foundation, was formed as a way for scientists to rapidly disseminate new discoveries and theoretical developments to the worldwide scientific community.  Its original intent was to be an open forum for papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed journals. Over time the criteria for approval of submitted papers to the archive became more complicated and restrictive.

“Presently hosted at Cornell University under the direction of physicist Paul Ginsparg, it blocks certain physicists from posting their papers to this archive.  The arXiv administrators maintain a list of physicists whom they have blacklisted or ostracized so that any paper those individuals attempt to submit is systematically rejected regardless of its scientific content.  Usually these blocked papers have already been accepted for publication in reputable peer refereed science journals or in other cases are undergoing review for journal publication which indicates that these papers are serious and well thought out. The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates!  One characteristic that these ostracized physicists share in common is that they have written or published papers in the past which propose new ideas that challenge traditional physics dogma.  In other cases their published works just happen to run counter to the particular theory preferences of the small political clique administering the archive.

“Our world is experiencing serious problems such as exponential population growth, environmental pollution, impending energy shortages, nuclear proliferation, and climatic change. We cannot afford to suppress the works of those seminal minds whose new ideas could revolutionize the way we interact with the world.  What if a paper described the discovery of a new source of energy that could help to alleviate the coming energy crisis?  Or, what if a paper brought to light a serious environmental hazard which, if unheeded, would result in a substantial loss of life.  And, what if arXiv.org moderators censored one such important paper because of a possible personal dislike of its author or because it conflicted with a theory they personally favoured?   Society cannot afford this kind of behaviour.  

“In today’s fast changing world it is not enough just to publish one’s ideas in scientific journals, a process that can drag on from months to years until approved for publication.  Rapid communication of all plausible new ideas to the academic community through an easily accessible internet archive is essential to the progress of science.

“The purpose of this site is to alert the public about the blocking activities being conducted by the Cornell sponsored arXiv.org administrators and to relate the case histories of those scientists who have been censored and/or blacklisted.  Archive Freedom advocates that this practice be immediately stopped and that all scientists be given open uncensored access to this archive to post their technical papers.  We respectfully urge the administrators at Cornell University, as guardian of the world’s knowledge of physics, to honour the contributions of all serious scientists.”

An alternative to arXiv has recently been launched by physicist Phil Gibbs: It is called viXra and can be found at www.vixra.org. I hope it will be well supported so that it can become a viable resource for science.