|The Beehive (left) and Parliament House (right)|
MARCH 23rd 2012
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
I cannot do anything but rejoice at the departure of Nick Smith from the Cabinet because of a "Conflict of Interest:" He is the most fanatical supporter of the theory that "global warming" is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide. I might just repeat once again, my experience last year.
Rodney Hyde asked a question in Parliament regarding the evidence for the "global warming" theory. Nick Smith replied that he would lay on a briefing for him and the other MPs to explain this. Rodney asked whether he could bring along an expert with him. Nick Smith immediately agreed.,
As I am a member of the Climate Science Coalition in Wellington. I found myself appointed as this expert. I went along to the ACT Party office a bit before the appointed time to discuss things with Rodney Hyde. I was introduced to Sir Roger Douglas and then we went to Nick Smith's office in Parliament and went and sat down. I was welcomed by everybody present.
Then, in walked Nick Smith. He went red all over when he saw me and shouted "You don't belong here. This is for MPs only. GET OUT". So I got out. Rodney Hyde said nothing.
So now he has gone from the Environment post. Good riddance.
But "Conflict of Interest"? Is this a good reason for a dismissal? Nobody seems to realise that the most elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest that has been inflicted on the public is the "Global Warning" Theory.
I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.
How have they got away with it?
Attempts to "simulate" their unreliable and manipulated past climate "data" have been failures, yet are claimed as successes, But even if the "data" were genuine and the simulation successful it does not prove anything. Correlation, however convincing is not evidence of causation. The only way you can demonstrate the success of any theory is successful prediction of future climate over the whole range it is intended to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This has already been done with Newton's Laws of motion and Darwin's theories of evolution. It has not been done with the "global warming" theory. There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event. They do not even pretend they can do it, as they only provide "projections" from their models, not "predictions": .
How have they persuaded us that they are able to predict future climate?
They operate a system called "attribution". This is a combination of "simulation" (correlation), and "assessment" by "experts". The "experts" are all paid to provide the models that they are assessing. These assessments are therefore an elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest.
They apply a whole series of "likelihoods" to each "assessment" and apply a fake "statistical significance" which, unlike those normally applied to genuine science, have no background of actual experimental observations.
I attach the official list of instructions on how to perpetrate this elaborate fraud on the international community, from the Fourth IPCC Report.
"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" Charles Darwin
Attachment: AR4 Uncertainy Guidance Notes (pdf)