Thursday, July 13, 2006

The New 'Free Radical': Bigger, Badder, BETTER!

Subscribers will now have theirs. Contributors will have theirs. Good newsagents will have theirs.

What am I talking about? I'm talking about the biggest, baddest, re-launched, re-shaped best and BIGGEST Free Radical EVER, of course. Edited by yours truly, issue 71 has 72 pages (count them, 72 pages!) of pithy, gripping, infuriating, enlightening and downright SHARP reading. "This is arguably the best and undoubtedly the biggest ever Free Radical," say readers. "No question."

What's inside?

  • Free Radical 71 has the EXCLUSIVE exposé of how the Labour Party stole the New Zealand election, and how Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton is using the 1688 Bill of Rights to sue the Prime Minister to get it back. David Farrar and Bernard Darnton give details.
  • Read James Valliant and George Reisman on the Great Immigration Debate.
  • Discover just what Lindsay Perigo is saying in California about Objectivist Rage in answer to Barbara Branden's TOC presentation: the whole speech is here!
  • Find out how Urban Sprawl is Good, how Production precedes Consumption, how the famous Global Warming 'hockey-stick' was exposed as a fraud, and what NZ's Climate Science Coalition intends to do about it.

And that's just a start. Read on, and find out about:

** The man who's just been convicted of sedition.
** The doctor who became a brothel keeper.
** The man refused permission to mow his lawn.
** The teenager who sparked a pro-science movement that's got the animal 'rights' eco-terrorists on the run.
** Why New Zealand will continue to struggle for electricity, and what needs to be done.
** How Australia, NZ, Malaysia and the UN are helping to make a Marxist revolution in the South Pacific...

... and more. MUCH, MUCH MORE! Music. Architecture. Art. Humour. Outrage!

Wit! We've got it.
Punch! This has it.
Exposés! It's loaded for bear.

Of course, you might say that because I'm the editor for this issue, "Ah, he would say that."

Ah yes, but it's true. It's all true.

IF YOU'VE NEVER READ 'THE FREE RADICAL,' THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO START. IF YOU THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW 'THE FREE RADICAL,' THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO RE-DISCOVER IT.

This Free Radical is the real thing. As the tag line says: Politics, Economics and Life as if Freedom Mattered!

Subscribe TODAY to get your new Free Rad in your letterbox next week. Or, you can order a copy from good newsagents. Or go here and buy a PDF copy online and start reading immediately. If you don't, you WILL regret it.

Don't miss out. Subscribe Now! Buy now! You'd be a fool not to.

LINKS: Buy 'The Free Radical' - SOLO Store

TAGS: Politics-NZ, Politics-World, Politics-US, Objectivism, Libertarianism, Politics, Economics, Politics-Labour

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Eric Olthwaite said...

Peter's right folks. I'm not one to often blow another man's trumpet, but I was really impressed to find Peter's tremendous organ in my box last Tuesday.

I haven't started it yet, it's aside for my weekend reading because I know from flicking through it once I start I won't be able to put it down.

Great work Peter, do what he says people and buy it.

7/14/2006 08:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

PC said:
[how the famous Global Warming 'hockey-stick' was exposed as a fraud, and what NZ's Climate Science Coalition intends to do about it.]

I agree completely here. I have read some expert comments on the summary of a report of how massive fraudulent is the so called 'hockey-stick' model is.

The 'hockey-stick' model developed by Mann (et al) which prompted a consensus amongst scientists in the IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the United Nations in 2001 to initiate Kyoto.

Here is a comment from one expert:

[The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) has reported on its investigation into the "hockey stick." That was the controversial reconstruction of temperatures over the past thousand years that said there was very little variation in those temperatures until the last century and that the 1990s were probably the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the past thousand years. The IPCC relied heavily on the "hockey stick" graph in its 2001 report. Governments around the world have used it in pressing their case for Kyoto. Al Gore champions it in his movie .]

I my view , that is nothing wrong with researching and publishing a scientific study, because that is what researchers in all diciplines of academic do all the time. However there is something wrong with claiming that 'Global Warming' debate is final and case is closed. This reminds me of court cases in movies, where a counsellor usually says in a cross-examination "No further question your honour". I am afraid to say to the tree-huggers out there that there are more questions to come. The debate on global warming is just starting and we should let scientists proceed forward with the debate and not be hijacked by alarmists and flawed model as the 'hockey-stick'.

Mann et al (hockey-stick inventor) might be genuine in their research and that is fine because this happens all the time in any research of any dicipline. What was wrong is the consensus that all jumped and declared "no further question your global citizens". I believe that Man et al didn't set out to commit fraud in their research, but tree-huggers and Green Peace set out from the beginning to hang tightly to 'hockey-stick' in order to defraud the global citizens.

History is littered with such genuine research but flawed outcome. I give 2 examples:

Example #1:
In 1989, Professor Fleischmann and his colleague Professor Pons of Southampton University stunned the world by announcing that they have discovered the nuclear cold fusion at room temperature. This would have made the worlds energy supply very cheap and clean.Fleischmann-Pons were celebrity overnight. First items on the evening news in major chanells around the world and also front page of every major newspaper. At Auckland University the Physics in collaboration with Chemistry departments sprung into action by exactly replicating the experiment described in the paper that the inventors published. The result came to a disappointing null. Fleischmann-Pons obviously had flaws in their theory and apparatus set-up. Researchers from other institutions also confirmed the null result where their findings made it to respective Chemistry & Physics peer review journals. This is exactly what scientific consensus is all about, discovery, scrutiny and peer recognitions.

Fleischmann-Pons academic careers were destroyed, because they were ridiculed by their peers in the global scientific community. At the end they left their academic teaching positions to pursue their own private interests.I doubt that Fleischmann-Pons set out to defraud the public about their research. Fleischmann-Pons should have left their discovery to their peers to confirm rather than rushing to the newsmedia to do a press conference. They should have done the norm, by publishing the results in whatever Physics journal that the paper was submitted to and wait for the confirmation when other peers follow thru with their own research and publications based on the Fleischmann-Pons published paper. In this way they would have saved themselves from being ridiculed by peers in making such outrages claim.
First, such claims defies the laws of 'Quantum Mechanics'. Laws of Physics cannot be broken, either by human or nature itself .It is similar to claims made by psycho-kinesis practitoners that they can will an object to float in the air. Such claim must be dismissed outright and don't bother checking it as it violates 'Newton 3rd Laws of Motion' which states that every action there is a reaction. For someone making a claim to will an object to float in mid-air without any causation (action) at all is fraud. Quantum mechanics says that the tremendously specific low temperature that supposedly Fleischmann-Pons claimed that cold-fusion took place is impossible to happen. Just as impossible to hear someone claiming that the power of the mind can will an object to float in mid-air. Fleischmann-Pons thought that they defied the laws of Physics but at the end, the laws of Physics defied the 2 scientists in that they have lost their academic careers when they thought they were on to winning a Nobel Prize.

Example #2:
In 1913, Einstein published his papers in "General Theory of Relativity" as one of the greatest scientific theoretical physics of all time. His theoretical derivations lead him to a result that the universe is static (standing still). It was taken as a consensus at the time since, who in the world can disagree with the theoretical proposals made by the great man. Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s observations of stars lead him to a different conclusion. The universe is expanding and not static and the great man (Einstein) is wrong on his proposals. Clearly the evidence shown by a phenomena called Doppler redshift. Redshift is the lengthening of the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. If a radiation source is moving away from an observer the wavelength will be shifted towards the red-end of the spectrum. IF anyone standing on a train station, he/she will notice that when the train approaches, he/she hears a high pitch sound, and when the train passes he/she hears a lower pitch sound, but if he is on the train he obviously hear a different pitch which is the same pitch as if the train is standing still. Reasons for the different pitches relative to the motion of the train is that the sound wave is compacted (shifted to shorter wavelength) when approaching the station and it is being stretched (shifted to longer wavelength) when receding the station. It is the same as a star when it emits radiation. Stars emit radiation in the blue spectrum but if a star recedes from an observer (a person on the earth), then he/she will see a red-radiation. If you see a traffic cop out on the road with his speed meter, it is the doppler red shift that he is using to calculate your speed whether you comply with the limit.

A great lesson that we should learn from our history in science that says, we should not jump into conclusion yet because there is a claim which is alarming. Let the scientific community do whatever they have been doing that is to research and published in a specific topic and their peers will check it out and counter publish if they find flaws or add-on and improved what has been missed out in the claim of that first publication.

7/18/2006 12:25:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home