What Type Of Greenie Are You? - A Little Test

Lets face it. We're all greenies to some extent. 

Who would want to trash their own world, when it's the only one we have? The fact is there is no replacement possible at this point in time nor is there likely to be for a very very long time to come, if ever.

However, most of us would shudder at the thought of being called a "greenie". The reason of course is that the name has been hijacked and trashed by a political org "hell bent" on power and control via a "scatter brained" ideology.

The “political greens” are in fact “extremist economic terrorists”. They unite to conquer and dominate. They seek to dictate, to all, the way we live our lives. Their ideology demands living conditions and restrictions far worse than communism. See Agenda 21.

They have infiltrated all levels of government from local councils right through to the UN.

They have also infiltrated education institutions at all levels so they can preach their ideology to the young and vulnerable on a global scale. 

In my opinion the political greens are right up there, with the worst terrorists in the world. They already commit life threatening terrorist activities throughout the world in support of their agenda. 

In this country (Australia) their popularity and thus power base has waned. Their frustration of not achieving their goals will undoubtedly lead them to intensify such activities.

I intend to do everything in my power to make sure their slide does indeed continue in order to restore the name “greenie” to its traditional meaning. I hope others follow.

So what exactly is the traditional meaning of "greenie". I'll refer to these as "pure greenies" just to make a clear distinction with the terrorist org.

"Pure greenies" seek to minimize their ecological footprint so that more can share a good life on the planet in whatever way they want. 

They don’t make suicidal economic decisions for any purpose, especially not for power and control over others.

They understand nature and “evolution” and that all species adapt to their environment. If they can’t, they perish and will be replaced by new species, that are better suited to the environmental conditions of the time.

They understand Geology, the changing planet they live on and don’t expect everything to remain static or be in their control.

They understand that a green environment is a healthy one and a pleasant place to live. It has both mental and physical health benefits and as such increases their chances of a long and fruitful life.

As such I consider myself to be a "pure greenie". There are many of us across the world. I know many on all sides of politics. They’re a quiet bunch, not seeking power and not attempting to dominate others. However they will resist when others attempt such acts on them. If it weren’t for the few noisy ones like me, you wouldn’t know we even existed.

My family lives on a suburban block. We are keen gardeners with tree numbers on the property about four times the average for the area. The garden is watered using recycled grey water and tank water. The rain water tanks also supplement the “mains” water supply for much of the household use. Our “mains” water usage runs at around 25 to 40 liters per person per day. The average in this area is over 150 liters per person per day.

My average power usage from mains power is 7 KWhr/day.
My average power feed back to the grid from the solar system is 18 KWhr/day, hence my net power usage is a negative 11 KWhrs/day (i.e. fed back to the grid)

The above items focus on footprint reduction without causing any restrictions to ones lifestyle. There is some effort and cost involved in infrastructure, plumbing and plants etc. The commitment to such effort and cost provide a good indication of just how much of a "pure greenie" you are.

So here is the test: I invite you all to give your comparative numbers to those items above i.e.:

1. Trees on your property compared with others in your area.

2. Mains water usage compared with others in your area.

3. Mains power usage.

Finally, beware of those that want to add things like "what you drive, where and when". Such people seek to restrict, dominate and control you and they belong in the terrorist category.

Mathematical Analysis Of The Depletion Characteristics Of Atmospheric CO2

Update 19 Nov 2013
At last we have a decent analysis of CO2 depletion rates. IPCC models found to be seriously flawed. Surprised?

http://principia-scientific.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=398&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_November_18_2013

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This blog is intended to bring attention to the need for more rigorous mathematical analysis of the depletion characteristics of atmospheric CO2. It's something that I have noticed is sorely missing from the AGW debate. It's my belief that more effort in this area would better help our understanding of the potential of CO2 to impact on the wellbeing of our planet and it's inhabitants.

So this is my attempt to kick off such analysis.

Scientists say CO2 has a half life of 5 years. The IPCC say it's much more, without actually showing any empirical evidence. It really doesn't matter what it is. The main thing is that, by quoting a half life, they are accepting that it's a natural inverse exponential decay just like radioactive isotopes and even the voltage across a parallel RC circuit. ie:

1/e^x

x = t/T, where “t” is time and “T” is the time constant which is related to the half life by:

T = t(1/2) * 1.443 where t(1/2) is the half life time.

This relationship is derived by solving the equation at the 50% depleted point.

0.5 = 1/e^[t(1/2)/T]
So e^[t(1/2)/T] = 1/0.5 = 2
t(1/2)/T = ln(2) where “ln” is the natural log
So T=t(1/2)*1/ln(2)
T = t(1/2) * 1.443

In this case the T value is not simple but a mix of complex variables associated with photosynthesis, sunlight, cloud cover, temp, foliage coverage etc. If you average them over a year, they can be treated as constants and this provides a good year by year assessment of CO2 depletion.

The key point is that this suggests the CO2 depletion rate is proportional to it's magnitude, as is the case with all exponential decays. Hence there is no limiting factor. 

They same could be said of the RC circuit except that the capacitor would break down with higher voltages. I see no such possibility in photosynthesis. Furthermore, experiments do show that the higher the CO2 level, the higher the depletion rate and hence the faster the plant growth.

See>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P2qVNK6zFgE

So if we use our equation to chart the decay of atmospheric CO2 from a level of 2GT, for example, it would look like this:

The X axis is years and Y axis is GT of CO2.

So if you don't add any more CO2, then after 5 years you would lose 1GT. Alternatively if we had 200GT, then after 5 years, we would lose 100GT etc. ie depletion rate is proportional to magnitude and there is no limit to the CO2 sink. At least that's what this equation predicts. 

Furthermore, additional plant growth would result from the higher CO2 level, creating more foliage cover, which would increase the depletion rate, with a corresponding reduction in T and the half life.

Even without that additional foliage cover, we have a natural regulator of atmospheric CO2. The additional foliage just makes that function all the more potent.

This would seem a more likely postulate than that being suggested by the IPCC and/or their supporters. 

If the IPCCs "saturation of the CO2 sink" postulate were valid, then why is it that earths CO2 levels have been so well controlled over it's lifetime. 

Wouldn't it spin out of control and stay that way the first time a large volcano went off? These produce more atmospheric CO2 in a few days than humans do in several years.

This of course is an untested postulate but I believe it is more logical that that proposed by the IPCC. Time will tell who is right. In the mean time further testing like that shown in the link above will throw more light on this issue.

To confirm the exact nature of CO2 depletion by experimentation is difficult since we can't, on a global scale, get the situation where CO2 is not continually added.

I have seen some plots that have come from contained experiments and, while they are much lumpier that that shown above, they do follow that trend when one considers points from one year to the next.

We need more effort in this area from the science community. If there is a limiting factor in CO2 absorption as proposed by the IPCC and/or their supporters then we need to know about it.

On the other hand if there is no such limit, as suggested above, then we can expect that CO2 will remain well in control, even with many times more than the current human input of around 3.2% of total atmospheric CO2.

For long term historic temperature and CO2 levels I use this reference: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Finally: I understand, from researching this subject that the human tolerance of atmospheric CO2 is currently around 10,000 ppm, above which minor symptoms, such as headaches, can result. Of course we and other species continue to evolve to our atmospheric conditions, so provided there is no rapid change, species will adapt to whatever levels are maintained in the future. If they can't adapt then that's nature and evolution. It's not always kind.

Thanks for taking the time to reading my blog. 

Please feel free to comment, especially if you find any rigorous mathematical analysis material covering this subject.

The Corruption of Climatology

Climatology: The science discipline, so corrupted by green ideology, that it’s now normal practice to presume your postulates and assumptions valid “just in case they are”.

This inevitably leads to failed models like so:

(Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/  )

And when the climatologist’s models fail, the solution is to make further assumptions to defend them.

Like for example: “The heat has gone to the ocean depths and hides there in defiance of the laws of physics and that’s messing up our global temperature models.”

Or like this: “All the moisture has been sucked up by the dry Australian deserts and that’s messed up our sea level predictions.”

Or this: “the increased ice only looks impressive because last year was a bad year for ice”

Oh really!

(Source: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/nasa-losing-credibility-at-an-alarming-rate/  )

So where did this cancerous science mutate.

The club of Rome (just join the dots folks)>> http://green-agenda.com/

Wake up world, your being had, big time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/

Ancient Horse's Arses Control Almost Everything - History Lesson

Railroad  tracks. The  US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4  feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why  was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in  England , and English expatriates designed the US  railroads. Why  did the English build them like that? Because the first rail  lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad  tramways, and that's the gauge they  used. Why  did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built  the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used  for building wagons, which used that wheel  spacing.    Why  did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well,  if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would  break on some of the old, long distance roads in England ,  because that's the spacing of the wheel  ruts. So  who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the  first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for  their legions. Those roads have been used ever  since. And  the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial  ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying  their wagon  wheels.    Since  the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike  in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States  standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from  the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.  Bureaucracies live  forever.   So  the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process  and wonder 'What horse's arse came up with this?' , you may be  exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just  wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.  (Two horses'  arses.)        Now,  the twist to the  story:When  you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are  two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel  tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are  made by Thiokol at their factory in  Utah        The  engineers  who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit  fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the  factory to the launch site.  The railroad line from the factory  happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs  had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider  than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now  know, is about as wide as two horses'  behinds.        So,  a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the  world's most advanced transportation system was determined  over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's arse.  And you thought being a horse's arse wasn't important? Ancient  horse's arses control almost  everything... Source: email, author unknown

Fabrication of Snowden Story on Mind Altering HAARP

Fabrication of Snowden Story on Mind Altering HAARP

The link to the fabricated Snowden story:

http://www.chronicle.su/news/snowden-reveals-haarps-global-assassination-agenda/

It appears to be a complete fabrication.

Check out the similarity in these two photos:
The left pic is from a recent YouTube video.
The right pic is from the fabricated article but reversed.

The photo of him outside the building, yet somehow at the same time "in his custom faraday cage", shows moles on his face which are on the opposite side to where they appeared in the original Greenwald interview. And if you reverse the image, they line up nicely. In fact it looks uncannily like a photoshopped screenshot from that same interview. See my attachment. Notice the same light reflecting in his glasses and the same refracted image at the side of his glasses.
I don't think Snowden is giving interviews to anybody who comes along; certainly not some two-bit internet news site like that one. Just look it over - the "About" page is wild reading. It looks more like "The Onion" than anything else.

I think they're just  trying to cash in on his popularity and credibility to further their own weird agenda. Either that or they're trying to nullify his revelations by branding him a "tin foil hat".

As events unfold I'm becoming more convinced that Snowden is the real deal. I still can't quite shake the reservation though that he looks so much like Neo in "the Matrix". If they were wanting to present him as a "hero", that would be a great way to groom him.

This was sourced from an email from a colleague who will remain anonymous for now.

Viewbank Solar Monitor

Viewbank Solar Monitor

Introduction

The intention of this blog is to record my solar system performance.
I record five meter readings weekly into an Excel spread sheet and from that I can track system performance and solar trend data.

System Description

The system comprises a 4.8KW "on grid" and a 3.2KW "off grid" system.
There are 47 PV panels in a near perfect situation with no shading except at very low sun angles.
The system was installed at Viewbank Australia in Feb 2011. Viewbank latitude is -37.74 deg.
The predicted solar power, which was used to justify the installation, was calculated using a small PV panel over a 3 month period.

In 2009 the Australian government announced a 15 year Premium Feed In Tariff (PFIT) of $0.60/KW hr which is really $0.66/KW hr with GST feed back. Furthermore my contract included an increase in line with inflation for two years which has increased my feed-in tariff to $0.71.
At the time of installation, the cost of electricity from the grid was $0.18/KW hr "on peak" and $0.09 "off peak".
Even with that attractive PFIT, the "on grid" system was barely viable. The addition of the "off grid" system gave a slight benefit by ensuring most of the power generated actually went to the grid to maximize the payback. It also removed the temptation to not use power during the day, doing the washing etc at night. This change of lifestyle is something that many, who have installed "on grid" systems, go through once they realize their daytime power is actually costing them $0.66/KW hr.
The system is currently on track for a 10 year payback period, however this doesn't include cost of funds, insurance and maintenance. If those are included there is no payback!
For those interested in installing solar my advise is "DON'T".
The feed in tariff for new systems in Victoria is now just $0.08/KW hr. The cost of power from the grid is around $0.30/KW hr "on peak" and around $0.16/KW hr "off peak". So yes! It's a joke!

System Performance for Financial Year 2012-2013

Previous years have been very similar with solar energy steadily increasing over the three years as shown here.

Three Year Solar Power Trend

The above may seem of interest in the climate change debate, however the prediction was done toward the end of the El Niño and 2011 through 2012 were affected by the La Niña.
It will be interesting to watch that trend. The PV panels will deteriorate to around 80% after 25 years so the trend should eventually reflect this.

That's it for now. I will continue to update this post each year around July.

Original post July 2013.

The Ant and Grasshopper Fable on Socialism

Preface

A brilliant little Fable, Author Unknown. If you recognize your work please mention it in a comment and I'll add the credit.

ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER 
Two Different Versions.... Two Different Moralities

OLD VERSION 
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION 
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

Channels 7, 9 and 10, the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shiveringgrasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast. 
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing,'We shall overcome.'
Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's  sake.

Prime Minister Gillard condemns the ant and blames John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of thegrasshopper and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government and given to the grasshopper. 
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorise the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighbourhood.

Climate Change Scaremongering is a Threat to our Democracy

The latest Climate Commission report on climate change is yet another joke from a farcical organization.

The claim that all scientists are now in agreement with the premise that "the climate is changing" is just so dumb. Off course they are and always have been. The climate has always changed, naturally.

Furthermore, main stream media has a lot to answer for, for their obvious scaremongering presentations.

For example:
On Apr 3rd, 2013 ABC1 news presented a graphic claiming a 40% rise in GHGs since the industrial revolution, followed immediately by a picture of the chimney stack of a coal fired power station emitting predominately steam. The associated audio stated "we need to take immediate steps to reign in emissions". The intention was to convey the though that humans had caused this 40% increase in GHGs.
We have to presume that they're referring to atmospheric CO2, unless they've found another significant human caused GHG that they are keeping from us, for fear of creating alarm. Oh yeah sure!

Reality check:
Human CO2 production is just 3% of the total. Nature is therefore responsible for the remaining 37% of the rise they've referred to.
So what their data should be telling them is that nature is responsible for 100*37/40 = 92.5% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since industrialization. Hence, if they're blaming CO2 for climate change, then they've clearly highlighted that nature is not only predominately responsible, but also that it's so dominate that any change we make to our CO2 emissions will have an undetectable impact.
So why are their conclusions the exact opposite of this?

As it happens, industrialization started around the time of the end of the little ice age. Natural CO2 production has been on the rise since that time. This is due to the warming of the seas, which causes more CO2, trapped in the oceans depths, to be released.
The thermal inertia of the seas means the temperature increases much more slowly than the surface temperatures. Hence we expect that more "old ice" in the Arctic and Antarctic will melt each summer and natural CO2 levels will continue to rise.

Another example from a similar Climate Commission campaign last September.
SBS news presented the story by showing two graphics side by side. Each were satellite pics of the Arctic, one with little snow/ice cover and the other with heavy cover. The story was highlighting IPCC alarm over the rate of decay of the snow/ice cover. The final comment from the presenter was, "be aware that this was not the change over a long period. This was the change in just six months".
The tactic of that statement was twofold:
1. It was designed to be alarming for the unaware.
2. It meant that they could not be challenged for presenting misleading information.

Reality check:
Obviously the snow/ice cover of the Arctic varies bi-annually from a minimum after summer to a maximum after winter. Hence the two pics were useless for a measure of melt rates and for their associated alarming story. You would need to compare pics from one year to the next exactly 12 months apart. Furthermore, as we know from the previous example, we expect the cover to reduce as the oceans warm. So no surprises here for those that are aware. The intention of course was to alarm the unaware and there's a lot in that category. If challenged for this misleading information, their reply would be along the lines, "but we correctly reported that the two pics were taken 6 months apart".

Conclusion
The worlds climate is changing as it always does, naturally. The Climate Commission and especially the IPCC are trying to take advantage of the natural variations to support UN agendas.

They (or their earlier cohorts) tried the "coming ice age" scare back in the mid seventies and failed.
They tried the warming scare around the turn of the century and failed.
They have now perfected their tactics so that a majority of people will be convinced and hence will beg to be saved from the monster.
Panicked masses can easily be convinced to vote for anything, including the forfeiting of voting powers.

See this article from the global cooling scare of the mid seventies.

http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t394/VK3BBR/GlobalCoolingSolutions_zps601b07b2.jpg

This is a serious threat to our democracy.
It's up to those of us who are aware to inform others.
Spread the word!

Revised April 8th 2013

Does Human CO2 Cause Global Warming

The IPCC will have you believe that human produced CO2 is a significant driver of global warming, however a quick check of the facts shows that it's insignificant.

The problem with the IPCC is that it's a political org with a UN agenda. Their science is pseudoscience and they sell it using scaremonger tactics. Even their pseudoscience review process has been discredited see:

http://polliter.com/2013/03/19/top-warmist-scientist-we-were-wrong-no-warming/

There is no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 has caused warming, however that’s not to say it’s ruled out. 

If we postulate that CO2 “in our lower and upper atmosphere, including its effect in the Troposphere” does have an overall uncontrolled warming effect, and given that man is responsible for approx 3% of current CO2 production, and even though this is minor, especially when compared to the normal NATURAL variation of CO2 production (approx 12%), then if that postulate is proven to be correct, it must be concluded that man does indeed add to the warming.

Proceeding with the assumption that our postulate’s true; let’s look at the magnitude of this problem. The average global surface temp for the period 1988 to 1998 rose by 0.5deg C. That’s the temp excursion that put the world in a tizzy. 

Now, if we were to stop all industry/power generation/cars etc and live in the trees using bows and arrows to catch our food, then with that 3% less CO2, the average global surface temp rise for that period would have been the same +0.5degC. We simply could not detect the change given the coarseness of our measurement accuracy. 

So we must conclude at the outset that the problem is miniscule.

Now, how do we prove our postulate valid?
If we were the IPCC we would find every possible piece of evidence that might prove our postulate true. That mountain of data would usually be enough to convince most people the postulate was indeed valid.
On the other hand, if we were a science org, we would exhaust every possible means of disproving our postulate. If after that process we still hadn't refuted it, then, under science rules, we can accept it as fact.

For this postulate, the IPCC relies heavily on the fact that CO2 can be proven to be a GHG using a relatively simple lab experiment. Unfortunately it’s impossible to simulate the atmosphere and all of its gasses/impurities/particles and concentrations right up to the troposphere in the lab. Hence, this in itself is not proof.

Last year we had a solar flare event that allowed NASA scientists to do measurements in the Troposphere and those measurements concluded CO2 and NO were “natural thermostats” in as much as they emitted heat to space via radiation. Here’s the article.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

I was one of many that misinterpreted this, thinking it had repercussions on CO2, in as much as it was not only a GHG, but also provided a temperature limiting function. We got a rebuttal from “Watts up with That“ for our efforts. Here it is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

The point of raising this is not to show my stupidity but to highlight the comments on this post. There are a lot of very good points made. I’m not totally satisfied that we are wrong with our interpretation. One suggested some gasses present (or H2O vapour) could take the heat up into the Troposphere where it would warm the CO2 by conduction, which in turn would radiate it to space, as it did for the solar flare heat energy.

The most significant problem for our postulate is the last 16 years of real surface temperature data, which indicates temperatures remain essentially flat, even though the CO2 level continued rising. We should have more heat, so where is it? Under the rules of real science we must deem our postulate invalid unless we can come up with an explanation of where the additional heat has gone. I've seen IPCC articles on the possibilities but none have impressed me at all. Here is the most even handed article I could come up with:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/27/a-sea-change-on-climate-sensitivity-at-the-economist/

Note the sentence “Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before“

Well I’ll buy that! So maybe there’s something in our “radiation to space from CO2 in the Troposphere” theory.

Conclusion:

So does human CO2 cause global warming or not? The truth is, us humans haven't figured that out yet. 

With the current inconclusive state of climate science and our previous conclusion that it's a minuscule problem anyhow, one has to ask; why are we panicking over this and why are we putting so much effort and $$$ into it?

And a little PS while I have your attention.

Things like this don’t help the alarmist’s case at all.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

So there you have it. Now I brace for the expected degrading and demeaning remarks from the alarmist lobby in line with their usual scaremonger tactics:

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/health-scaremongering.php

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/what-is-pseudoscience.php

Revised April 8th 2013.