Freedom's FoUNdATIoN - Galileo Movement

1 downloads 203 Views 365KB Size Report
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf .... McLean shows UNEP laid the foundation and template fo
Freedom’s FOUNDATION Reclaiming our country and our planet using

TRUTH

EXPOSING Corruption of climate science: Misrepresentations, distortions, omissions, evasions, myths and lies

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

i

ii

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

Freedom’s FOUNDATION Reclaiming our country and our planet using

TRUTH EXPOSING Corruption of climate science: Misrepresentations, distortions, omissions, evasions, myths and lies

Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust) Project Leader (voluntary) The Galileo Movement (non-profit) www.galileomovement.com.au

july 2011

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

iii

Introduction

Reports by the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC, are the basis of government and Greens policies. Solid, quantified, irrefutable data reveals that UN IPCC reports provide no basis for policy. Government and Greens’ policies are based on corruption: misrepresentations, distortions, myths, evasions, omissions and lies. Reports and comments by publicly prominent Australian academic advocates of human causation of global warming are similarly corrupt. Those academic advocates named herein are funded by government and misrepresent science, climate and Nature. Government agencies are similarly exposed for having no real-world evidence of human causation of global warming and for misrepresenting science, climateand Nature.

Personal declaration of interests

My public personal declaration of interests is available at: http ://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/ Personal20declaration%20of%20interests.pdf Before posting their work on my web site www.conscious.com.au, I asked Dr Vincent Gray and John McLean to provide their declarations of personal interest. Both did so without hesitation. These are included in my public declaration.

1. John McLean presents UN IPCC data on its reporting processes John McLean’s work is shown at www.conscious.com.au. His work cannot be sensibly refuted—it presents data exposing the UN IPCC’s own reporting processes. That data was obtained from the UN IPCC. It reveals that the UN IPCC 2007 report’s sole chapter claiming human warming is unfounded. It contains no evidence of warming by human production of CO2: http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23573.pdf http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/McLean_ipcc_review.pdf 4,000 scientists did not claim human warming. The claim was endorsed by only five (5) UN IPCC reviewers. The supposed ‘scientific consensus’ claiming that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming is a falsity propagated from the top of the UN’s climate body. It was spread by the Australian government. eg, by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Sunday, August 17, 2008. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/tarabrown/614370/crunch-time In the UN IPCC’s latest report, 2007, the sole chapter claiming global warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide contains no real-world scientific evidence for its false claim. It disguises unvalidated erroneous computer models. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html The United Nations has fabricated, corrupted and politicised climate science. It started in 1972 with the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and deepened with the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) from 1988. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_ corrupted.pdf John McLean’s work across the field of climate is accessible here: http://mclean.ch/ climate/global_warming.htm John’s contact details (e-mail address and phone) are available by request through The Galileo Movement www.galileomovement.com.au.

2

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

2. The work of UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray (PhD, Cambridge) UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray has around 60 years real-world experience as a research scientist, with 21 years in climate. He has reviewed all four (4) UN IPCC reports: 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. His astonishingly detailed and thorough reviews are comprehensive and specific. They address far more points and contain far more comments than do any other UN IPCC reviews. His review comments on the latest UN IPCC report comprise 16% of all review comments to the UN IPCC. Dr Gray’s reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no strong evidence of any net warming, human or natural. His reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no real-world evidence for its claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. Despite his enormously significant reviews, his comments were not even acknowledged by the UN IPCC chapter Review Editors. This is unlike true scientific peer-review in which authors are accountable for explaining their response to each reviewer’s comments. Not so in the UN IPCC. It uses buddy-review. He reveals that the UN IPCC downplays the known importance of solar cycles and El Nino Southern Oscillation Index as drivers of Earth’s climate and global temperature. Gray lives on his retirement pensions and, like McLean, has no financial interests in global warming. www.conscious.com.au Vincent’s contact details (e-mail address and phone) are available by request through The Galileo Movement www.galileomovement.com.au.

3. Supposed scientific peer-review has been corrupted, bypassed and sometimes prevented An independent international audit of the UN IPCC’s latest report, 2007, revealed that 5,587 references cited and relied upon by the UN IPCC were not scientifically peer-reviewed. They include mountaineers’ stories, newspaper articles and political activists’ campaign material. Yet the UN IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri has repeatedly publicly stated that UN IPCC reports rely on 100% peer-reviewed science. A blatant falsity from the top of the UN’s climate body. Universities whose scientists were prominent in the Climategate scandal have failed to independently investigate the scandal. Yet the British Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) uncovered a breach of law by UN IPCC scientists at the Climatic Research Centre, the core of the UN IPCC’s temperature fabrications. Refer to The Eco-Fraud: Part 1, A Timeline of International Fraud http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The%20Eco%20Fraud_part%201.pdf

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

3

References exposing failed Climategate whitewashes are provided at: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/additional%20material/climategate%20 references.pdf McLean states that the science Working Group One’s (WG1) sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide (chapter 9) had two co-ordinating lead authors, seven lead authors and 44 contributing authors. 85% of the authors of the sole chapter attributing warming to humans were not appointed by the IPCC but merely by the 9 appointed authors. The authors formed a tightly knit cabal. None of the authors of this core chapter have any evidence of human causation of global warming.

4. Chapter 9’s Lead Authors breached UN IPCC guidelines and have no evidence of human warming According to UN IPCC guidelines, Lead Authors are responsible for ensuring a widerange of authors from diverse backgrounds worldwide. Yet that key chapter was written by a tight knit cabal of authors overwhelmingly from four institutes huddled around the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the core of the Climategate scandal. They are dominated by computer modellers and present no real-world evidence for their claim of human warming. They appear enmeshed in conflicts of financial interest. Refer to McLean’s presentation of UN IPCC data (see item 1) and Bobroff ’s summary of the IAC report (see item 10). The authors of chapter 9 rely immensely on their own papers for their conclusions that contradict real-world science. The tightly knit cabal of authors who wrote the UN IPCC’s sole chapter (9) claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide were so closely inter-related that independence was lost. Refer to Wegman as quoted in Ball’s chapter 11 (see item 6) and refer to McLean’s work. ‘Scientists’ at the core of the UN IPCC’s temperature fabrications have refused to allow access to data. That should immediately disqualify their claims as unfounded. According to Climategate e-mails, ‘scientists’ have threatened to destroy data rather than allow it to be investigated.

4

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

5. Each of the four (4) UN IPCC reports to national governments and media is based on an unscientific falsity 1990 Reportedly based on the report of the UN’s 1985 climate conference in Villach, Austria and written by Bert Bolin who later became the UN IPCC’s first Chairman. That 1985 report contradicted the science. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_ corrupted.pdf. 1995 Five times IPCC scientists reported no human warming. Yet the politicised summary for policy makers given to national governments and media stated human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524# See chapter 11 of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. (item 6) UN guidelines dictate that the political report be released first. Where the science report differs it is changed to be the same as the political. It’s a scam. It’s driving a political agenda. 2001 Based on the infamous hockey stick graph falsely fabricating unusually warm temperatures. The graph was later exposed by Wegman and separately by McIntyre and McKitrick and others as an unscientific fraud. The graph is now discredited worldwide and was withdrawn from use by the UN IPCC after it formed the basis of the UN IPCC’s global campaign of climate fear. The refusal to release data and code means the graph should have been immediately declared unscientific. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf A summary of key points and references is provided on page 9 of http://www.conscious. com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20humanity_single.pdf 2007 Reliance on unvalidated computer models that have since been proven erroneous. Even the UN IPCC admits in its Table 2.11 that of the 16 factors on which the models are based, 13 have low or very low levels of understanding. UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray exposes the use of unvalidated computer models in his review of the UN IPCC report’s chapter 9 available at www.conscious.com.au http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_ co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

5

6. Unscientific UN IPCC reports contradict scientific process UN IPCC falsities and unscientific practices are summarized on pages 9 to 14 of ‘Thriving with Nature & Humanity’: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20 humanity_single.pdf The courageous work of Professor Tim Ball leads the world in analyzing, exposing and summarising the UN IPCC’s practices and politicisation. It’s ironic that Canadian Tim Ball exposes Canadian bureaucrat Maurice Strong’s campaign of falsities. Ball’s chapter 11 of the book ‘Slayers of the Sky Dragon’ is arguably the most succinct and comprehensive summary of UN climate manipulations. The book was written by an international team of scientists and authors. They discuss the UN IPCC’s supposed greenhouse effect. The book is comprehensive yet easy and quick to read.  The authors provided me with chapter 11 and authorised me to make it available to MP’s for their personal use if genuinely interested in exploring climate. The chapter is under copyright and not for circulation separate from the book. The UN IPCC’s political Summary for Policy Makers was written and given to national governments and media before the science chapters were written. UN IPCC guidelines state that where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence. Thus science reports are modified to reflect the political summaries. As Professor Ball writes on page 125 of Slaying the Sky Dragon, quote: It started it early. The main report is then reviewed to make sure it ‘aligns’ with the summary. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.”

On pages 126-127 of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ Ball provides an example, quote:

Chapter 8 didn’t have specific evidence of a human signal. The original draft submitted by Santer read, “Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: “When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?” In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, “We do not know.”

6

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

This was changed by Santer to accommodate the SPM to read, “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate.”26 Notice this is “statistical evidence” not actual evidence, but is part of the growing desire to ‘blame’ humans. Compare it with the comment in the 1990 IPCC report. “...it is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to (an) enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available.” By the time of the 2001 report the politics and hysteria had risen to a level that demanded a clear signal. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence.”

7. The origin of climate science corruption: The United Nations Environmental Program, UNEP Maurice Strong was appointed UNEP’s first Secretary General, in 1972. McLean shows UNEP laid the foundation and template for political distortion of climate and science. Using quotes from senior UNEP and UN IPCC officials, McLean reveals how UNEP’s misrepresentations were later honed and extended by the UN IPCC, co-sponsored in 1988 by the politicised UNEP. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean-disband_ the_ipcc.pdf http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_science_corrupted.html Then click on the PDF to: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_ corrupted.pdf http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean_we_have_ been_conned.pdf

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

7

8. The ‘science was settled’ before the IPCC science was started. On March 24, 1988, Sweden’s largest daily newspaper—‘Dagens Nyheter’— published an article written by two Swedes: Bert Bolin and Mans Lonnroth. In the article entitled ‘Introduce a tax on carbon dioxide’ (Infor skat pa koldioxid) Bolin said, without supporting evidence, quote: Continued release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is an ecological experiment which is ethically indefensible. A specific tax on carbon dioxide needs to be considered.

Later in 1988 the UN IPCC was formed. Bert Bolin was appointed its first Chairman. It produced its first report in 1990, reportedly based on Bolin’s report of UNEP’s 1985 Villach, Austria climate conference that lacked any real-world evidence of human warming. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_science_ corrupted.pdf A copy of Bolin’s March, 1988 article and translation are available at http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php The article introduces many false scares that became a standard part of climate alarm. eg, unfounded and false claims on sea levels, irreversible catastrophic temperature rise, ... Greens’ destruction of science The article fabricates an immoral aspect that is falsely spread by Greens’ lies today. Falsely creating and taking the high moral ground made it difficult for scientists to speak out against the corruption of scientific process. Even today, skeptics fulfilling their scientific duty are labeled as deniers and associated with holocaust deniers. They have recently been threatened with tattooing, gassing and derogatory labeling. The Greens nearly destroyed objective science. Yet during the last 300 years science gave humans unparalleled security, ease, comfort, convenience, longevity, wealth and independence. If science is not rescued from destruction by the Greens, people living in poor, undeveloped nations may never enjoy the benefits of developed nations.

8

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

9. The UN IPCC misled the world about CO2 measurements During the last 180 years, 90,000 reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels were made, including those by Nobel science prizewinners. Some recordings are up to 15-40% higher than current levels. Beck (2007) Beck, E-G, 2007. 180 years of CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods, Energy and Environment, Volume 18, No.2. [Accessed July, 2011] http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/ daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf The UN IPCC omits these scientific readings. From Professor Bob Carter’s book ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus’, page 72, quote: … it is disputed whether the twentieth century rise in carbon dioxide was really steadily progressive. For example, Slocum (1955) demonstrated an average level of 335 ppm (0.0355%) of atmospheric carbon dioxide, with little variation, over the last two centuries, and Ernst Beck (2007) has summarized some 200,000 wet chemical analyses of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which show irregular fluctuations that include a 380 ppm (0.038%) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the 1940’s.

Secondly, Zbigniew Jaworowski is an internationally eminent atmospheric scientist, ice core expert and participant in UNEP. Interviewed and quoted by Canadian environmentalist and writer Lawrence Solomon, Jaworowski reveals that the UN fudged by shifting axes on a key graph to fabricate a graphical fit of CO2 data. Jaworowski’s comments are quoted in ‘The Deniers’ by Lawrence Solomon. This book presents interviews of the world’s leading scientists eminent in their fields. It’s short, easy to read and stunning for exposing the blatant corruption of climate science.

10. InterAcademy Council finds major breaches of science by IPCC After serious scandals rocked the UN IPCC, it commissioned the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to review the IPCC, its processes and procedures. Peter Bobroff ’s four-page summary of the IAC report is available at: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/UN_IPCC_IAC-Report-OverviewLong.pdf. It quotes from the IAC itself supporting each of Peter’s following summary statements, quote:

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

9

IPCC faces acute issues of accountability and transparency. AR4* was produced with a total lack of transparency. *AR4 means Assessment Report 4, the UN IPCC’s 2007 report. There was no evidence of any procedure to exclude conflicts of interest in the preparation of reports. The presence at important meetings of government representatives, who control funding, probably strains the objectivity of scientist who receive the funding. The Review Editors were clearly not independent. “Assessments” “were provided where no reliable information existed.” Government representatives negotiated the SPM line by line, making AR4 a wholly political document. Deliberate political interference in the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) caused it to differ in content from the underlying (scientific) report. There was political interference with the scientific results. The IPCC indulged in advocacy. Bias: The precautions necessary to produce a credible unbiased scientific assessment (or systematic review) are well known to scientists but were ignored by the IPCC. The scoping of AR4 was not done by people selected by a transparent process and criteria. Properly documented alternative views were not given due consideration. Genuine controversies were not adequately reflected. Lead Authors were at liberty to reject critical review comments without justification. Authors placed too much weight on their on views relative to other views. Uncertainty: Many conclusions of AR4 were based upon little or no evidence, and were not traceable to the underlying science if it existed. Unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature was used in violation of even the weak procedure then existent and was almost never appropriately flagged. There was

10

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

no traceability in the assignment of ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood. (ie, UN IPCC statements of 90% likelihood of events have no foundation.) Inappropriate use of unpublished and non-peer reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated compounds the uncertainty of any conclusions. Conclusions were stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute. Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence. Working Group 2 Summary for Policy Makers assigned high confidence on little evidence. The scientific method has been compromised by unwillingness to share data.

11. Prominent Australian academic advocates cannot provide real-world proof for their claims that contradict science. I have asked eight prominent professors for real-world evidence: ›› Professor Tim Flannery (BA English, MSc, PhD—evolution of macropods) ›› Professor Ross Garnaut (economist) ›› Professor Will Steffen (chemical engineer, PhD inorganic chemistry) ›› Professor Matthew England (mathematician and computer modeler) ›› Professor Andy Pitman (computer modeler) ›› Professor Kurt Lambeck (geophysicist) ›› Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (biologist) ›› Professor David Karoly (Professor of meteorology yet apparently lacking

undergraduate degree in meteorology, UN IPCC Lead Author and Review Editor, writer of draft UN IPCC Summary for Policy Makers

All publicly advocate that humans caused global warming. One leads the push for artificially raising energy prices. Two are members of the government’s Climate Commission, including the Chief Commissioner. Three are members of the Climate Commission’s Science Advisory Panel. All receive government funding or are employed by institutes funded by government. All failed to disclose their financial interests in advocating for human causation of global warming. Yet none can provide any evidence. ‘Summary Findings’ provides a summary of UN IPCC corruption and real-world science. It can be skimmed by reading the orange text. Available at:

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

11

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Notes%20for%20 web%20site.pdf (Within that document, some links extending beyond one line in length may have become inoperable in the first web version posted. Where this occurs make sure you have uploaded the latest Adobe Acrobat Reader.) Professor David Karoly (Professor of meteorology yet apparently lacking undergraduate degree in meteorology)

Professor David Karoly has been a UN IPCC Lead Author of the UN IPCC 2001 report’s sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide. He was a Review Editor of the equivalent sole chapter in the 2007 report despite it being reportedly based on his 2001 chapter. Despite holding these positions, in his responses to my requests for real-world scientific evidence of human warming, he has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence. He is a professor of meteorology, yet lacks an undergraduate degree in meteorology. His public statements broadcast by ABC-TV contain alarming falsities contradicting weather data. I am advised that he did not study meteorology as an undergraduate. He studied mathematics. A copy of one of my e-mails to him is available at: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Karoly%20 E-mail%20January,%202011.pdf Professor Ross Garnaut (economist)

Professor Ross Garnaut has been prominently advocating that artificial increases in energy prices be imposed on people. Yet his 2008 Garnaut Review’s chapter 2 on the science admits there is no evidence of human causation. He still has no scientific evidence yet recommends increasing prices. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter2.pdf My letter to him is enclosed and available at: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/GarnautMarch2011.pdf

12

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

Professor Tim Flannery (BA English, MSc, PhD—evolution of macropods)

Professor Tim Flannery is the government’s Chief Climate Commissioner. I have twice publicly requested him to provide evidence of human causation of global warming. Twice he failed. With his answers he revealed that he does not understand what is meant by empirical evidence, nor does he understand cause-and-effect. Dr Wes Allen has released what is the first known detailed review of Tim Flannery’s book ‘The Weather Makers’. Dr Allen’s review reveals that 307 statements in Tim Flannery’s book created 577 problems including Baseless extreme comments, Suspect sources, Half-truths, Misrepresentations, Misinterpretations, Exaggerations, Factual errors, Contradictions, Failed predictions, Mistakes (Some statements earn more than one category). http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php#G Dr Allen’s complete spreadsheet analysis of ‘The Weather Makers’ is available at: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/TWM_Spreadsheet-11.pdf Yet on the basis of ‘The Weather Makers’, it seems Professor Flannery scared many young adults into climate alarm, garnered his 2007 ‘Australian of the Year’ award, rocketed to fame, launched a publishing career, became a darling of the media and especially the government’s ABC network and scuttled the government on climate in 2007, an election year. His falsities have never been rigorously scrutinised in public by politicians or journalists. To discover and assess for yourself, Dr Allen’s book entitled ‘The Weather Makers ReExamined’ is available from Irenic Publications: http://www.irenicpublications.com.au/html/orderFrm.html Some of Professor Flannery’s many contradictions and apparent conflicts of interest have been publicly exposed on various links available at: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php#G His startling contradictions on the coal industry reveal an approach that is illogical and unscientific.

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

13

Professor Will Steffen (chemical engineer, PhD inorganic chemistry)

Professor Will Steffen’s presentation to the government’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was analysed by four scientists and one economist at: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/05/the-critical-decade-part-i The Galileo Movement’s press release on the Climate Commission’s far-fetched, unfounded and unscientific ‘report’ ‘The Critical Decade’ is available at: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/MediaRelease20110523.pdf and http:// www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/Report20110523.pdf Will Steffen commented at his Ipswich presentation on May 7th, 2011 that there is not one credible scientist on the Oregon Petition signed by 31,000 scientists opposing the Kyoto Protocol. Yet the petition includes eminent UN IPCC scientists including Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Frederick Seicz and many other reputable scientists. Is he not aware that the informal leaders of the spontaneous worldwide people’s movement exposing UN IPCC fraud are UN IPCC scientists wanting to protect scientific integrity? http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20 humanity_single.pdf In comments to MP’s in Canberra’s parliament house, Will said that in his forecast warming world it would be, quote “almost impossible” for our bodies to give off extra body heat. How does he think our ancestors survived past far warmer periods than today? What does he do in summer? Why does he spread falsities? Is it to cover for his lack of scientific evidence? Professor Matthew England (mathematician and computer modeler)

Professor Matthew England’s responses to my requests for real-world evidence of human causation of warming have failed to provide evidence. His responses reveal ignorance of what constitutes empirical evidence and ignorance of cause-and-effect. He contradicts real-world science and data: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/E-mail%20reply.pdf

14

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

Professor Andy Pitman (computer modeler)

Professor Andy Pitman has failed to provide real-world evidence for his claims of human causation of global warming. He failed to even define what he means by scientific peerreview and refused to compare scientific peer-review with the buddy-review used by the UN IPCC. His responses to requests included unfounded falsities. See for yourself at: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Thread%20No1.pdf http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Thread%20No2.pdf http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Thread%20No3.pdf http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Thread%20No4.pdf Professor Kurt Lambeck (geophysicist)

Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science failed to provide any real-world scientific evidence for his public claims of human causation of global warming. The Academy’s publication ‘The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers’ uses glossy pictures and artwork with carefully scripted implied statements to imply science, yet fails to provide any evidence of human causation: http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (marine biologist)

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg has been publicly spreading falsities. My complaint to the University of Queensland for his falsities broadcast as an employee of the University included my annotated transcript of his ABC-TV broadcast. It is available at: http:// www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/ABC%20transcripta.pdf Note the real-world data on sea levels as measured and published by the Queensland government’s Maritime Safety Queensland. It shows Australian sea level during the last 15 years rose at the rate of 0.3 mm per year. Over a hundred years that would be 3.0 centimetres, around one inch. South Pacific islands’ sea level data shows no rise over 20 years: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf Global sea level data—sea levels flat since 2003: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/new-sea-level-dataset-now-available-still-flat/ Ove has repeatedly failed to provide real-world evidence of his claim that global warming was caused by humans. How is it that a marine biologist promoted as an expert on global warming seems unaware of the oceans’ role in determining atmospheric CO2 levels?

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

15

Recently, a Canadian web site exposed his financial links to Greenpeace activist funding. The site lists nine chapters in the UN IPCC’s 2007 report that based their findings on his work. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/

12. Government funded agencies failed to provide evidence The following agencies are funded by the Australian government and produce glossy reports implying global warming was caused by human production of carbon dioxide. Careful examination of their reports reveals that they provide no real-world evidence for their implied claims. CSIRO

I have asked the CSIRO Chief Executive, Dr Megan Clarke and CSIRO’s Group Executive—Environment, Dr Andrew Johnson for evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. In their responses both failed to provide real-world scientific evidence. CSIRO’s publication ‘The Science of Tackling Climate Change’ provides no evidence for CSIRO’s claim of global warming due to human production of CO2. Cleverly worded statements implying causation even when ‘supported’ by glossy pictures, are not science and are not evidence. Why is CSIRO deliberately misleading taxpayers funding CSIRO? http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/political-science-101/ Dependence on government funding has apparently corrupted CSIRO ‘climate science’ and converted CSIRO into an advocacy agency. Australia’s Chief Scientist

In response to my requests of the former Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Penny Sackett, she failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans. The current Chief Scientist has failed to provide any evidence in support of his public claims.

16

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

Australian Academy of Science

In response to my request of Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science, he failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology—official audit requested

In December, 2010 a group of concerned scientists, citizens and Senator Cory Bernardi formally requested the Auditor General to audit the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The group is concerned about unscientific tampering of temperature recordings that appear to fabricate or exaggerate warming. The Bureau of Meteorology is funded by the government. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/audit/anao-request-audit-bom.pdf Please feel welcome to check directly with Jo Nova, Ken Stewart and Warwick Hughes. The latter scientist pioneered in exposing global warming fraud. Warwick’s probing led eventually to exposing the Climategate scandal. Visit their sites: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ http://www.warwickhughes.com/ http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/ http://joannenova.com.au/ In responses to Gregg Thompson’s request for evidence of the BOM’s claims of human causation of global warming, no evidence has been produced.

13. Actual Temperature vs UN IPCC temperature corruptions ‘Thriving with Nature & Humanity’ provides references, pages 18-23: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20 humanity_single.pdf Driven by UN IPCC corruption of science, ground-based temperature measurements have been corrupted in the three linked databases relied on by the UN IPCC. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf It refuses external scrutiny of its database. Why? That makes it unscientific. The UN IPCC claims human CO2 warms the atmosphere yet downplays temperature measurements of the atmosphere by weather balloons and satellites. These are known to be accurate and show no net warming since 1958—just inherent variation in Nature’s cooling, warming, cooling cycles. http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.php The UN IPCC uses unvalidated computer models to fabricate temperature, sea level and other projections. These consistently contradict real-world science. corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

17

Failed global warming projections and false predicted catastrophes: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/10_major_ consensus_failures.pdf That’s expected since the UN IPCC’s own Table 2.11 (2007) shows 13 of 16 factors driving its models have low or very low levels of understanding. The sole factor it claims to be of high understanding contradicts science. The UN IPCC downplays solar and El Nino SOI climate drivers that are known to hugely influence climate. These explain temperature variations. http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/McLean_deFreitas_Carter_JGR_2009.pdf http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895. pdf http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/Aust_temps_alt_view.pdf http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf

14. To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed: ›› Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures; WITH, ›› Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures; WITH, ›› Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth’s global atmospheric temperature;

WITH,

›› Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global

atmospheric CO2 levels; WITH,

›› Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.

For each of these there is no scientific proof. There is much real-world scientific proof showing they are not occurring.There is solid proof that CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Ask Basic Questions http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Basic%20Questions.pdf How can humanity’s 3% of Earth’s annual CO2 production be catastrophic while Nature’s 97% be essential for all life on Earth? It cannot. Refer to Freedom’s Foundation, Carbon dioxide (CO2) facts. That data shows it is illogical and impossible for Nature’s CO2 to be beneficial yet human CO2 to be dangerous. CO2 is a blessing. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Note_to_the_Administration_so.pdf

18

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

CO2 is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Seasonally and on a lag of 400-800 years, CO2 levels follow temperature. ‘Thriving with Nature & Humanity’ provides references, pages 18-23: http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20 humanity_single.pdf ‘Two Dead Elephants in Parliament’, page 37: http://www.conscious.com.au/__ documents/dead%20elephants.pdf

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

19



Concluding questions, challenge and offer of support

These notes explain why the ALP particularly has been contorted by its climate policies. ALP-Greens and Liberal-National policies contradict real-world science. All major Australian parties and the Greens have been played for mugs. In turn the ALP-Greens have treated the Australian people as mugs. Yet many Aussie scientists and citizens have been vilified by the ALP-Greens for trying to expose the con. Kevin Rudd acknowledged in April that the ALP government cabinet contains skeptics opposed to any action supposedly on climate. Why have they been silenced? Why can independents not provide evidence of human causation of global warming? Why are independents not asking fundamental questions or not being given answers in terms of specific real-world evidence? Greg Combet is a mining engineer. As a mining engineer myself, I know that he was taught fundamentals on sources and levels of carbon dioxide. He had an introduction to Earth’s geology and should understand carbon dioxide’s role. He is intelligent and should know CO2 cannot and does not drive climate. He has placed himself in a very difficult and compromised position trapping himself in his own CO2 lies and dishonesty. Many Coalition MP’s already know that humans did not cause Earth’s latest period of modest cyclic warming that ended around 1998. They are led by the so-called ‘hard-man’ of conservative politics, Tony Abbott. Yet he lacks the courage and integrity to speak out—seemingly in fear of embarrassment from loud journalists and editors swimming with the tide of uninformed perceptions. Are Coalition debating skills so poor they cannot make use of masses of solid, irrefutable, quantified data on the corruption of science? Or are Coalition MP’s lacking integrity and courage? Or are they held back by Malcolm Turnbull’s connection to Goldman Sachs with its massive financial interest in ‘trading’ carbon dioxide for easy profits? Will the Coalition continue to allow misrepresentation of climate and science? Or will MP’s take a stand demonstrating integrity and strength of character? Will MP’s reach out to many real-world scientists ready to support MP’s and Australia? Will the Coalition ‘create a new narrative’ that truly cares for the environment and Australians? Here’s an opportunity for loyal grassroots ALP MP’s, Coalition MP’s and independent

20

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

MP’s to reach across political, social and environmental spectra to expose and replace a government awash in lies and tarnished by Greens demanding socialist control. Will MP’s fulfill their parliamentary responsibility as people’s elected representatives? Will MP’s protect taxpayers’ wealth and the future security of families? Keynes said:

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

21

Reading Many books and articles provide examples of the UN IPCC’s corruption of the scientific process. They include quotes from UN IPCC authors and Lead Authors exposing blatant politicisation of science. These books provide examples of unscientific practices, misrepresentations, distortions, ommissions, evasions, myths, lies and politics contradicting science. Additional material, details and references are available at: www.galileomovement.com.au Some recommended references: ›› The Deniers by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon ›› Air Con by New Zealand investigative reporter Ian Wishart ›› Climate: the Counter Consensus, Carter, 2010, Stacey International ›› Slaying the Sky Dragon by an international team of scientists and writers ›› Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, Singer, Ed, NIPCC. 2008, SEPP

http://sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf This 28-page booklet is easy to read and is a sound summary by some of the world’s most distinguished physicists, climate scientists and environmental scientists.

›› The Past and Future of Climate, Archibald, 2010, self-published ›› Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Klaus, 2006, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Klaus is President of Czechoslovakia

›› Shattered Consensus, Michaels Ed, 2005, Rowman & Littlefield ›› Climate of Extremes, Michael & Balling, Jr, 2009, Cato Institute ›› Unstoppable Global Warming, Singer & Avery, 2007, Rowman & Littlefield ›› Thriving with Nature & Humanity contains a longer list of references http://

www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving%20with%20nature%20and%20 humanity_single.pdf

›› Two Dead Elephants in Parliament contains more references: http://www.

conscious.com.au/__documents/dead%20elephants.pdf

22

corruption of climate science | th e galileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

Some useful books on climate; ›› UN IPCC, 2007, chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change. Check for yourself the IPCC’s lack of real-world evidence, its reliance solely on unvalidated models and it wording that cleverly yet falsely implies scientific evidence http://www.ipcc.ch/ publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

›› The Real Global Warming Disaster, Booker, C, 2009, Continuum ›› Energy Security, Copley et al, 2011, ISSA ›› A Voyage of Discovery, Endersbee, 2005, self-published ›› Energy Keepers, Energy Killers, Innis, 2009, Merrill Press ›› The Heartland Institute, international conferences on climate, 2008, 2009,

2009, 2010, 2010, 2011. www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news. org/index.html and: www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news. org/searchresults.html?cx=015397170090247670231%3Ad9eyykrfpw&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=conference+on+climate&sa=Search&s iteurl=www.heartland.org%2Fenvironmentandclimate-news.org%2Findex.html

›› The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg, 2001, Cambridge ›› Extraordinary Popular Delusions, Mackay, 1841, Harriman House ›› Climate Change: the Facts, Moran, A, Ed, 2010, IPA ›› A Short History of Planet Earth, Plimer, 2001, ABC ›› Heaven & Earth, Plimer, 2009, Connor Court

Longer lists of books and internet URL’s are available from http://joannenova.com.au/ and at www.galileomovement.com.au including the longer version of Gregg Thompson’s CO2 perception survey.

corruption of climate science | t he g a lileo movemen t | ma lc olm rob erts | 0419 642 379

23