We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

The Science is NOT settled despite a tendentious 4 Corners report

On the Four Corners episode "The Climate War", our Chief Scientist Professor Chubb expressed the view that he thought the debate on climate change keeps reaching new lows. The trouble is we have not had a debate on the science behind the anthropogenic global warming scare. He also said that we need to have very serious discussion. Well, in his position as Chief Scientist, why doesn't he set up a discussion forum. Not a stacked forum (like The Climate War) but an open forum with all sides represented.

He could start with an explanation of this graph of global temperatures showing warming from 1978 to 2002 and no warming since:

The above graph is part of a post by John L Sullivan on Climate Realists. He is countering a blatant alarmist Washington post oped piece by Richard Cohen. He could well be addressing Professor Chubb.
Sadly for Cohen the facts below prove he is just another mendacious mainstream propagandist of climate alarmism.
He starts by mentioning the resignation of professor Ivar Giaever from The American Physical Society previously recorded on TCS blog here. He then goes on to itemise 50 former IPCC experts who have seen the light. He gives a quote from each. Here are a few:

  • 3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
  • 6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
  • 13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
  • 33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled." 
  • 16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
  • 34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Can we trust the scientists that are pushing the alarm? Consider these statement from Phil Jones included in the climategate emails:

E-mails from  Phil Jones (East Anglia University)

March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.


July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Professor Paul Roderick Gregory in Forbes writes:

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

The debate between “warmists” and “skeptics” is about whether human Co2 emissions are the cause of warming, whether the relatively small effects of these emissions will compound into larger changes, and, if so, whether, the benefits of remediation outweigh the costs.

 In Australia we must also ask some follow-up questions:
  • Will a carbon dioxide tax cause any reduction in Global Temperatures?
  • Will a 5% cut in Australia's Co2 emissions make any difference?
Professor Gregory continues:
First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.” Instead, he writes that the evidence suggests that “the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored  by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.” His resignation brings to mind Phil Jones’ threat to “get rid of troublesome editors” (cited above).
Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.

 Gregory says that the Giaever story shows that there is no consensus or as he puts it - disputes claims of "inconvertible evidence." The editor's resignation he describes as "unprofessional behaviour."
Third: The media is tarring  and feathering  Rick Perry, we now see,  for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists.  I guess if  Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of  Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee.
 Gregory's conclusion:
False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science.  The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives,  and who could blame them?

Of course, none of this contrary opinion found its way to air in Four Corners tendentious "The Climate Wars."

3 comments:

  1. 20 September 2011
    The Managing Director
    A.B.C., GPO Box 9994
    SYDNEY NSW 2001

    Dear Sir/Madam

    The A.B.C. plumbed new depths last night.

    The attempt by Marian Wilkinson, on 4 Corners, to portray climate sceptics –
    I am one of many - as a mob of right-wing nutters was a travesty of bias.

    Wilkinson simpers and smiles while Gillard and Combet deliver their party piece – in fact, with Milne, they got almost half the programme – before turning her guns on Tony Abbott.

    She makes much of the alleged misbehaviour of sceptics, carefully forgetting the criminal decision of Rising Tide(a group of activists) to chain themselves to a coal train bound for Newcastle. Then the abuse: “deniers”(Gillard – 11 times); “climate saboteurs”; “misfits, cowboys, the sons and daughters of Dr.Goebells”(Robyn Williams). And from Greenpeace:- “We know who you are, we know where you live, we know where you work.”

    Cory Bernardi gets the treatment, with the insinuation that he learned his technique of organising from some whacko institution in the U.S.A. And of course the now standard jibe at Alan Jones.

    But then it’s all of a pattern, isn’t it? Whether from Holmes(Media Watch), with his snide attack on Lord Monckton, or your environment reporter Clarke(“climate change is real..”), or your own Phillip Adams – “clowns and populists – the Minchins, Moncktons and Pells.”

    Well, Wilkinson and her executive producer had better understand that the people we represent, unlike the café-latte society, won’t cop this nonsense from the Government. Supporters are coming out of the woodwork.

    And that the contest has only just begun. Sophie Mirabella urged the gathering at Canberra: “Maintain the rage!”

    With perfectly lawful means, we intend to do just that.

    Yours faithfully,

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, The above is from an active member of The Climate Sceptics Party.

    I posted it, meaning to add that it was from a member, but it was under my name.

    Although I didn't write the comment, I support everything that our member wrote.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!