Australian Climate Sceptics have exposed MS Carlisle's faulty research before:
In a Guest Post by Elizebeth Flowers, we reported several of her statements: "Ms Carlisle went to considerable pains to seek to denigrate Fred Singer" and "Ms Carlisle erroneously criticised Lord Monckton’s claims re the IPCC’s sea level rise projections."
Elizebeth closed her post with: (LINK)
Unfortunately, Elizebeth, yes, she does epitomise ABC bias.Are we not right to assume that such derogatory inaccuracies should not be permitted in ABC reporting and that Ms Carlisle should be compelled to publicly retract her statements or be censured? Or does Wendy Carlisle epitomise ABC bias!?
Malcolm Roberts also wrote: (LINK)
The work of journalists such as Wendy Carlisle has, in my view, enabled the spread of bogus science to the detriment of Australia. Tax payers fund her yet she's abetting the fleecing of taxpayers via and unjust and unfounded tax driven by a political agenda.
Some of Ms Carlisle's new inaccuracies today:
- 97 per cent of scientist who study the climate. ie the experts. this number comes from a tally of published papers in scientific journals dealing with climate science
- Friends of Science is a front for the fossil fuel lobby
- Bob Carter has not published on the question of climate science probably forever
- I just rely on what the overwhelming majority of scientists specialising in climate say.
- Heartland Institute is a franchise of the fossil fuel lobby
- Like I'm sorry but I wouldn't be taking a scientific opinion from someone who didn't have the expertise. etc
97 per cent of scientist who study the climate
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?.
- Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
So, flawed (or loaded) questions must skew the result. Ms Carlisle however says the study comes from a tally of published papers. Several studies have looked at papers. The most recent was Cook et al. This has been rebutted many times including a peer reviewed paper: (LINK)
Friends of Science a front for the fossil fuel lobby
Previously FOS may have indirectly received some funds from energy sources however not for six or seven years. Friends of Science say: (LINK)
We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.
Summary for Policymakers Lead Authors/Editors: Craig D. Idso (USA), Robert M. Carter inter alia..
I can image Ms Carlisle is spluttering in her lattee and saying: "I meant in peer reviewed journals."
I just rely on what the overwhelming majority of scientists specialising in climate say.
Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. The main problem with this fallacy is the mere fact that many people agree on something often does not imply that what they agree on is true.Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” So, no matter how many scientist on the public tit believe the CAGW hypothesis, as Einstein says, it only takes one falsification to blow the hypothesis out the window: Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis Falsified - multiple times.
Heartland Institute is a Franchise of the Fossil Fuel Industry
There have been numerous false and malicious claims that The Heartland Institute is a front for the energy industry and is funded by "the Koch brothers." These statements are often made with full knowledge they are untrue; in some cases they are made without such knowledge.
With this notice, the reader is informed he/she will have no defense of "innocent mistake" made because of lack of knowledge and may have legal liability for defamation.-- Legal Counsel, The Heartland Institute June 2014
I wouldn't be taking a scientific opinion from someone who didn't have the expertise. etc
What, Ms Carlisle, Like this stories?
The Scottish peer Lord Monckton has been raising hell against the carbon tax in barnstorming rallies and public meetings around the country. But just who is Lord Monckton and who are the forces behind him? Chief amongst them a mysterious group called the Galileo Movement and mining magnate and now media player Gina Rinehart. Reporter Wendy Carlisle.
Google Lord Monckton, nothing mysterious- his aim is to expose the global warming hoax.
Tell me, Ms Carlisle, have you read any of the NIPCC reports prepared by scientists. These reports counter the IPCC reports.
The I(ntergovernmental)PCC Summaries for Policy Makers are reviewed by line by line by government representative from around the world before their release. Many scientists writing the reports and supplying the data do not agree with the summary. Indeed the IPCC summary does not agree with the supporting reports
On the other hand, scientists behind the NIPCC reports all support the summaries.