Anthropogenic Global Warming. From the Deception about Consensus to Total Refutation.

The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming derives from the work of John Cook 2013, linked below. Cook calculated this number by excluding 66% of climate scientists who did not state their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). For the remaining 34%, he considered 3 criteria: a) explicit endorsement that humans are the primary cause of climate change in recent times, b) unqualified endorsement of AGW, meaning that humans contribute something/anything to warming but are not necessarily the primary cause of climate change c) implicit endorsement of some human contribution to climate change. He then lumps all these criteria together and claims that 97% of the 34% agree on AGW theory. He fails to clarify in the conclusions that AGW in that context means even very slight contribution to warming; not that 97% agree that humans are the Primary driver of the recent warming. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

The real problem with Cooks work is revealed only in his second study, in which Cook performs a sleight of hand and substitutes his earlier, weak definition of AGW consensus, that humans contribute anything to global warming but are not necessarily the dominant cause, with the strongest IPCC definition: “Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century'”. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From this point onwards IPCC has adopted Cooks “evidence” in support of their different definition, and so the fallacy of 97% consensus on IPCC position was born. All this is apart from the fact that consensus about beliefs is not evidence of facts about the objective reality.

Since Humlum 2013 we know beyond any doubt that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary driver of global temperature. Humlum et al. have shown, by analysing the official climate data-sets, that the rate of change of global temperature shows zero sensitivity to the rate of change of CO2 concentration, which precludes the possibility of CO2 driving the global temperature.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Humlum’s study has attracted aggressive criticism for his largely speculative, alternative explanation of climate change, but nobody has even attempted to refute his primary conclusion, that the rate of global warming does not increase in response to an increased rate of CO2 emissions, which is a necessary feature of (strong) anthropogenic climate change as defined by IPCC.

“Ethics of Vaccine Refusal” is now temporarily available FREE on the BMJ website. Save and Share while the concession lasts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026

Here is my first article on Covid. The numbers cited are obviously no longer current, but the underlying principles still hold: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2020/03/22/covid-19-pandemonic/

This is how history will remember YOU. Endure!

The following petition, which was communicated directly to most members of the Victorian parliament, is intended to prevent the culprits using the excuse of incompetence or ignorance of the law. They now know that what they are doing is illegal, even a child can understand that something that does not exist cannot be given to someone else, so they are tacitly revealing their criminal intent. The petition solidifies their criminal liability. On a side note, I have contacted some 20+ parliamentarians to sponsor this petition, starting with those who are ostensibly opposed to the tyrannical overreach of the government. So far, nobody has accepted my request. Something else is going on behind the scenes that is not clear to me. Nevertheless, the more signatures this will get the more terrifying this liability is to those who are complicit in this crime. And no, they are not omnipotent, they are cowardly, internally fragmented and intellectually weak, that is why they have to resort to deception to manipulate the masses. They are terrified. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

Face-masks are a medical intervention, not just an item of clothing, because they have a medical objective and clinically affect a vital function of the respiratory system.

My Letter to Matthew Guy, Leader of the Opposition, Victoria (25.10.2021)

Dear Matthew,

1. EMERGENCY POWERS

I have introduced the following E-Petition to the Legislative Council, contesting the constitutional validity of Emergency Powers in Victoria. In essence, the delegation of emergency powers by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself. Would you be willing to sponsor my petition?

Grievance:
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion should not be allowed.

Action:
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove all current COVID-19 emergency directives and restrictions and repeal all legislation that grants the Government emergency powers.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

2. VACCINE MANDATES

I happen to be an expert in medical ethics and I want to share with you some critical information regarding Covid-19 vaccine mandates. I will refer to my paper recently published in the BMJ.

Discrimination on the basis of negative vaccination status is inherently unethical:

Vaccine mandates amount to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate biological characteristics of the human race. This is contrary to the established norms that underwrite our moral intuitions about many other forms of prohibited discrimination. The argument is fully developed in my BMJ paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026. I suggest beginning with the associated media release: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

Moreover, since Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause death of healthy people, mandatory vaccination violates the right to life by arbitrarily killing a minority for the benefit of the majority. Specifically, when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die in the course of employment as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

“Section 111 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act states that the spread of an infectious disease should be limited with ‘the minimum restrictions on the rights of any person’. If Victorians have no rights, as Andrews asserts, then why mention them in the Act?” Anonymous Barrister.

The parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, and the parliament does not possess the procedural authority to limit citizen freedoms without a majority vote of both houses. Every Act that would purport to delegate the power to rule by decree is therefore void, including the proposed pandemic laws that purport to give the health minister dictatorial powers. There is a neat way of fixing this problem that allows the Parliament to save face. At the very lest, our parliamentarians will not be able to use the excuse that they didn’t know, and will openly incriminate themselves if they would proceed with these abuses of public authority. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

Is anyone here interested in asking David Limbrick and Quilty whether they would sponsor this petition? I wonder what response you will get, because I got nothing back, and I tried 3 times. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

We need to show people that they have been fed fake news for over 18 months. We will face stiff resistance since cognitive dissonance is a real thing. People hate being wrong.

But this bad news, that they have been taken for a ride, needs to be gently broken to them, like we would break bad news to our family members.

My letter to Neil Mitchell at 3AW (26.10.2021)

Hi Neil,

I am a philosopher of ethics based in Victoria and I want to share with you my paper published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, arguing that any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status is inherently unethical. You may be interested in covering this side of the vaccine controversy.

My core arguments are as follows:

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This is also contrary to the established norms that underwrite our moral intuitions about many other forms of prohibited discrimination. The argument is fully developed here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026. I suggest beginning with the associated media release: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

2. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Covid-19 is a natural phenomenon, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.

3. Medical consent must be free - un-coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of a valid medical consent. If it were morally permissible to prevent deaths during pandemics at the expense of free medical consent, then the right to medical consent would not exist at all, because there is no morally relevant difference between preventing millions of deaths and one death. Every illness can cause death, and even medical experimentation in a death camp may lead to future prevention of deaths, so if we believe in free medical consent at all, we must respect it for all medical interventions.

Unvaccinated is not a choice; we were born that way.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

Public Submission to The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.

I am referring to the proposed PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (PANDEMIC MANAGEMENT) BILL 2021 (henceforth, ‘The Bill’).

Dear members of the Committee,

I ask you to consider the following logical proof that The Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power.

Summary:

The Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. Therefore, delegation of powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s or Minister’s discretion is Ultra Vires.

In essence, the delegation of discretionary powers to infringe on citizen freedoms by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself.

Analysis:

The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority which assumes to create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot rise higher than its source.”

The legislative power in the State of Victoria is vested solely in the Parliament (s16, Constitution Act 1975), where the "Parliament" includes each House of the Parliament, the members of each House, the committees of each House and joint committees of both Houses (s94B.7). The only means of making legally binding restrictions on freedoms under the constitution is therefore by the majority vote of the Parliament.

The proposed Pandemic Management powers are essentially a delegation of the constitutional authority to make legally binding restrictions on freedoms. If the delegation were not an extension of the legislative authority of the Parliment it would not have the force of law. Pandemic Management powers, once assumed, are exercised by the decree of the Minister.

The constitutional objection is that the Parliament does not have the authority to dispense with or bypass any element of the legislative process set in the Constitution (including the majority vote by both houses). The Parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, since a non-existent authority cannot be delegated; to affirm otherwise would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, therefore a priori false. More formally, if X is a specific Parlimentary authority that is identical to the delegated authority X, then X=X, but if the the original authority does not exist, then not-X=X, therefore contradiction. Or simply, I cannot give you something that does not exist.

Any Act of Parliament that would purport to delegate powers that exceed the procedural limits of the Parliament itself is therefore Ultra Vires and Void.

Best Regards,

Michael Kowalik

A Simple Argument Against Workplace Vaccination Requirement

I have attempted to simplify my published argument against vaccine mandates (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3793981) for general use. My preferred persuasion strategy in dealing with any employer who requires employees to be vaccinated against Covid is as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employer requires an employee to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, the employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their participation?

If the employer would answer YES to point 1 (a provable fact), then YES to point 2 necessarily follows, and this implies an acknowledgment that the employer intends to violate the right to life in the course of employment.

The effect of these questions is independent of whether the vaccination requirement arises from a government mandate. If an murderous policy arises from a government mandate, your employer is still liable for willingly implementing it. The purpose of the above questions is to demonstrate that the policy violates the right to life, and to indirectly warn your employer that they are making themselves liable.

Failing to respond directly and honestly to an explicit question about workplace health and safety would in itself be incriminating; possibly already a violation of OH&S legal obligations.

Vaccine mandates imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026.

We should be afraid of state instituted vaccine coercion far more than of the vaccine itself, and of the vaccine primarily because it is backed by coercion.