John McLean: Forcing through the Fairfax Fog (and UPDATE)

John Spooner (of Taxing Air)
The Australian Climate Sceptics congratulate John McLean.

John has been running an
exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for years. John is part of the ICSC Advisory panel:

John McLean is an Information Technology specialist who has made an intense study of climate matters since 2003.  He brings skills in analysis and data processing to a data-intensive subject.  His critical review of CSIRO climate reports, published in Energy & Environment, was a first for Australia and his analysis of the peer review of the latest IPCC assessment report has been raised in the US senate.  His website contains a number of articles about climate, with emphasis on data rather than opinion.
It was with great delight that we saw he had managed to penetrate the fog that the Fairfax Press has created around the Catastrophic Man-Made Climate Change (CAGW) debate and had an opinion piece published in the Age and the SMH.

Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate

The world's so-called authority on climate change engages in exaggerated science and has become a political tool.
It was also great to see that the article was illustrated by John Spooner who was a co-author with, inter alia Professor Bob Carter of the interesting and informative book Taxing Air.

John, in his typical analytical way, starts:
We've recently seen comments about climate matters from Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, and David Karoly, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Melbourne and a member of the Climate Change Authority. 
Newman wasn't completely correct about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Karoly failed to mention some critical issues about the IPCC's operation and function.
John then goes on, understatedly,  to say that the IPCC has a narrow charter.
The IPCC's charter from the outset has been ''to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation''.
From it's inception, the IPCC, born out of the UNFCCC, could only look at "human-induced climate change" with specific reference to man's emissions of (vital-to-life) carbon dioxide.

The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific - any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change. IPCC assessment reports claim that the human influence is significant but look closely and we find the claims are based on the output of climate models that the IPCC admits are seriously flawed, that the IPCC often asserts a level of certainty that the data cannot sustain and that as ''Climategate'' showed us, a clique of scientists has in the past sought to control the material cited by these reports.
In other words:

 If it's the Sun, we are not interested.

Do clouds affect climate change? Not our problem.

Is it natural sources of essential to life carbon dioxide? Not our brief!

Is the world cooling? Hey, we're only here for the the man-made CO2 emissions causing warming.

If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are - exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics - this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC's charter and the political interference. (ACS emphasis)
Read more of John McLean at Fairfax here but even better at


There are some very erroneous comments on the Fairfax article and I wanted to comment/correct the errors but, guess what? Fairfax had the comment open at Midday and close before 1PM.

I wonder how many comment revealed the B/s of the one's let through and revealed too many facts about the falsified CAGW hypothesis?


  1. Dear All
    Today we experienced a “breakthrough” in the debate on the IPCC’s dangerous warming thesis. This is not the headline run by the ABC claiming that 2013 was the hottest year in Australia since 1910. It came from the publication in (of all papers) The Age of an article below by John Mclean.
    Mclean is a prominent sceptic of the IPCC and has exposed the falsity of that body’s claim that it’s reports are based on peer-reviewed contributions by scientists. McLean’s research has shown that only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter in the last IPCC report blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years.
    Note also that, as an accepted reviewer of the latest IPCC report, McLean’s analysis alone would justify an urgent review of the emission reduction policies currently being operated by the Abbott government.
    Let us hope that The Age will continue to publish the views and analyses of climate sceptics.
    Geophysicist Michael Asten does not have the same “accepted” credibility as McLean but his article is also important. By exposing the extent of natural influences on climate, Asten has belled the (IPCC) cat. As indicated in McLean’s article, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is charged with identifying human induced climate change and it has arguably failed to take adequate account of possible natural influences. Now, thanks to research undertaken by messrs Asten and his many colleagues, we know that human induced influences are almost certainly smaller than natural ones. The cat is now exposed and must explain how it allowed itself to be fooled by the mice.

    I would just add one to Professor Asten’s list of natural influences viz the increase in temperatures over the 1977-2000 years which led the IPCC to predict dangerous warming was due primarily to natural causes in the form of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation when cold water along the western Pacific coast of North America was suddenly replaced by warm water.

    Des Moore
    PS The claim that 2013 was Australia’s hottest year since 1910 does not of course confirm the dangerous warming thesis. To the contrary, as the graph in Monckton’s article below shows, the average global temperature has not increased over the last 17 years (including 2013). Australia’s published average temperature over this period has been slightly above the (zero) global one but that does not give any credibility to the DGW. Account also has to be taken of the fact the accuracy of Australian temperatures since 2010 is uncertain: the Bureau of Meteorology has “adjusted” some temperatures recorded at various sites and an examination of those adjustments suggests over-statements of the height of temperatures.

  2. There is no such thing as global warming! There is a thing called cycling and the earth does it every 500 years or so! When the ice caps melted about 500 years back there were no cars or motors of any kind yet they melted....Al Gore blamed that on cows making methane. The fact is the earth does cycle and it will repeat itself again and again....but hey give out awards to bumbling idiots if you want to!

  3. Please explain? What bumbling idiot was given an award?


Post a Comment

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