Thursday, 3 October 2013

Galileo Movement exposes Dodgy Journalism

Open Letter from Malcolm Roberts - Project Leader of the Galileo Movement

To all Federal MPs

Your dealings with some journalists have our empathy.

Here are three recordings exposing journalists' ignorant and/or deliberate misrepresentation of climate:

1. Recording of Graham Readfearn, The Guardian and blogger:

Summary and conclusions here:
Admits he doesn't read UN climate reports. Yet his work relies on the reports and spreads their claims.

2. Recording of Ben Cubby, Fairfax:

Redacted personal phone number and address. Transcript here:
Details and observations of Ben's behaviour are on pages 30 to 40 here:
Admits knowing little about formation and background of UN climate body. Yet his work spreads its claims.

3. Recording of Wendy Carlisle, ABC: 

Observations of Wendy's behaviour and propaganda is on pages 21 and 22 here:
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. That the ABC specifically endorses and supports the work is deeply troubling. It raises questions as to whether the ABC is being politically manipulated by the government, senior management and/or a journalistic culture that disregards facts and fairness in pursuit of ideology and political agenda.
Detailed analysis here:
and here:
(Both are part of this report:!.html)

4. Mike Carlton, Fairfax, pages 30 to 40, here: 

Video of holocaust survivor rebutting Mike Carlton's anti-Semitic smear is here:

Mike Carlton earlier failed to provide empirical scientific evidence for his climate belief. Instead, he introduced religion, race and his "conspiracy theories" into Australian climate discussions. Such tactics are increasingly seen as diversions hiding lack of evidence.

Contrary to facts, the vicious and false implied anti-Semitic smear was spread by Graham Readfearn and Ben Cubby.

5. Detailed analysis of five prominent ABC programs and the 'work' of some ABC journalists is here:

7. Strong journalists such as Andrew Bolt can be damagingly pressured and misled by journalists' hurtful false smears. See pages 30 to 40 here:

Despite ample documented evidence some journos fail to discuss UN and Australian corruption of climate science.

See appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9 and others here:!.html

All journos and program producers who push climate alarm based on human carbon dioxide contradict empirical scientific evidence. They're deliberately or inadvertently supporting corruption of climate science.

Are they dishonest? Or are they group thinkers? Or dependent? Or lacking strength to question what they initially perceived as the popular tide? Or naively aligned with vested interests stealing money by fabricating, pushing and/or milking unfounded climate alarm?

Given the facts and empirical scientific evidence, is their behaviour in misrepresenting modest cyclic global warming that ended in 1998 irresponsibly or negligently incompetent or is it deliberately dishonest?

Given that too many federal MPs are afraid of the media's power, it's easy to see many were herded into falsely accepting fabricated and unfounded climate alarm. We empathise.

Should all Australians pay the price for abusive journalism? None should. 

Please Axe the Tax, 

          Drop Direct Action and 

                      hold journalists accountable.

Malcolm Roberts

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

PS: To Wendy, Ben, Graham and Mike: If I'm in error anywhere please advise, specify and justify.
You have my contact details from our previous email and/or phone discussions.

At stake is human freedom, your freedom, our freedom



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

2nd OCTOBER  2013


I have studied, reviewed and appraised every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since the First Report made it plain that constructive critics are unwelcome these have been very few. I believe I am the only one who has commented on every Report. They did not answer my comments and most were ignored. It is unpaid hard work.

Why have I done it? It has given me a valuable insight onto the operations of what I have slowly become convinced is a comprehensive international-based fraud, and an attack on genuine climate science. There are many who try to control the flames from  the dragon;s jaw. I believe in striking at the heart

The story is told in my “Confessions of a Climate Sceptic” at;jsessionid=6B05FF9797F1FE126D7084B1BD93ED27

My book  which  debunks the third Report is currently available on   and also on and and Abe Books

The Fifth, AR5  IPCC WGI (Science) Report has now been accepted but not approved in detail, so it is still incomplete. It is available at

It has the following statement at the beginning of the Technical Report


The final  draft Report, dated 7 June 2013, of the Working  Group  I  contribution  to  the  IPCC  5th Assessment Report "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" was accepted but not approved in detail by the 12th Session of Working Group   I and the 36th Session of the IPCC  on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment  undertaken  by Working Group I.
The Report has to be read in conjunction with the document entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working  Group I   Contribution  to  the IPCC  5th Assessment  Report  - Changes to  the underlying  Scientific/Technical Assessment” to ensure consistency with the approved  Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-XXVI/Doc.4) and presented to the Panel at its 36th Session.  This document lists the changes necessary to ensure consistency between the full Report and the Summary for Policymakers, which was approved  line-by-line by Working Group I and accepted  by the Panel at the above- mentioned Sessions. Before publication the Report will undergo final copy-editing as well as any error correction as necessary, consistent with the IPCC Protocol  for Addressing  Possible  Errors. Publication  of the Report is foreseen in January 2014”

We seem to have a repeat of the scandal that erupted with the Second Report where a discrepancy between the Summary for Policymakers and the main, approved Report had to be “corrected” so that it complied with the SPM by Ben Santer.

Here they are doing the same thing again, but they are doing it officially. For the time being I will comment on what I have downloaded.

It is a very large volume and needs time to consider its implications fully. This Newsletter will deal with a few preliminary reactions.

Every page has the message “Do not Cite, Quote or Distribute”. I do not understand how they can do this with a publicly available document. The Second Draft has been leaked and if the Final Report has been launched publicly surely I have the right to quote it and discuss it.

It is certainly incomplete as we are not even told who the Editors are and there is no Introduction. You can get a picture of the front page

I have submitted comments on both drafts; 119 comments on the Second Draft. In the.earlier reports, not only were the comments confidential, they were secret and I never knew what had happened to them unless I tried to find evidence in the final report that they had taken notice of them.

With the last Report (No 4) somebody pulled the Official Information Act and they had to publish the comments and their replies. Most of mine were rejected out of hand.

Let us start with the Summary for Policymakers.

As I have pointed out many times, this is actually a Summary BY Policymakers because it is approved by anonymous Government Representatives who actually control the entire Report. They approve this Summary line by line, dictated to, in this case, 37 “Drafting Authors”. They also have “Contributing Drafting Authors” and the number of these has increased from 15 in the Second Draft to 37. They have also increased the number of pages from 26 to 36.


 In the Introduction  they make this statement:-
‘1 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following summary terms are used to describe the available evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence

2 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely”
This is the elaborate system they have established to compensate for their inability to provide any evidence for  their prescribed task, the predominate influence of human emissions of greenhouse gases on the climate. They have found that if they express their “confidence” that this proposition is true in these elaborate terms it will somehow replace actual evidence

They have found it to be necessary to raise this level of “confidence” with each report even when it becomes more and more obvious that their models do not work.

This report is infested with claims that almost everything is "Very Likely" - a term which indicates 95% certainty. The last 5% still has to left, just in case one day they will have to swallow their words.

My comment was as follows  “These are merely the opinions of biased "experts". They are not based on  scientific studies”.


In the First Paragraph of the SPM is the following confession:
“The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) considers new evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models”
My comment was
 “This paragraph is confused. You seem to have made a lot of "observations" which show what we all know already, that the climate is "changing", but "evidence" that you can explain it is dependent on "simulations", and "projections" from untested models, neither of which constitute "evidence" while they are incapable of successful future prediction.
  •  “Observations” are not the same as actual scientific measurements. They do make measurements, but they conceal them and package them up into multi-averaged “data” which are slanted to claim support for the cause.
  • “Simulations” are mere correlations; they do not prove causation
  • Their climate models provide only “projections” and not “predictions”. The media have failed to notice this distinction.
  • They say “many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia”.   
  • My comment was “The periods you quote are ridiculously short and many of the observations are dubious”.


Their first diagram shows “Observed global mean combined land and ocean surface temperature anomalies”

Note that they are not temperatures but “anomalies”

My comment was “Your claim that you have measured "globally averaged" near surface: temperature is untrue. In order to do so it would be necessary to distribute thermometers randomly over the entire surface of the earth, including oceans deserts and forests. The "global surface temperature anomaly" which you quote is very far from such a scientifically based system as it consists of multiple averages based on unrepresentative samples from non standardized condions which have very large uncertainties and biases which greatly exceed the supposed :warming,: and are never estimated.”

A feature of the whole Report is the attempt to cover up the fact that this botched up time series no longer indicates an upwards trend’ This graph from Chapter 1 of the Second Draft

Has been replaced with this one

which does not look quite so bad. They have changed the starting date and replaced the “error bands” on the individual points with much larger error bands for the models, based on the “projections” of the previous IPCC Reports.

They tend to end several plots in the year 2000 when it did not seem so bad and they like using “Decadal” temperatures to cover up their obvious failure to “project” temperatures for the past 17 years.

Steve McIntyre has shown that they have left out information from the last report, at

Here is another one, from Frequently asked Question No 1.1 which shows their estimates of uncertainty

These estimates of “uncertainty” should be compared with their new estimates for global energy distribution.


 My comments on this diagram were
“Sheer speculation based on an absurd misinterpretation of  the earth's energy supply, distorted to pretend that it is entirely controlled by radiation exchanges, The earth's energy is received by the sun only by day. The absorbed heat is used by all organisms, partly removed by  convection and evaporation and the remainder radiated to the exhaust (space) from the earth, and the heated atmosphere. There is no evidence that the so-called “greenhouse gases" play any part in this and models based on your theory cannot  currently improve on conventional weather forecasters”

Early versions of this diagram gave apparently constant energy figures. This is the same as an improved figure from the Second Draft, but they have now changed several of the figures. But, for the first time they have given uncertainty figures for each energy estimate.

They also admit that there is an energy imbalance. If you consider the ranges given for the various components you come up with the possible range of  the current imbalance of 0.6Wm-2  between + 40 Wm-2  to – 15 Wm-2.

My comments were as follows:
“The "Energy Budget" Is a joke.. The energy of the earth or at any place on it is never :"balanced" and the figures given in the diagram are all complex averages from skewed variability distributions of poorly characterised averages., Your current version even ventures to give (unbelievable) uncertainties which immediately cast doubt on any supposed "surplus".  Your models are thus calculating a supposed increase above a moving target. The model does not show what happens when the energy is received, by day only, in variable amounts, on varying surfaces, and it omits the energy which is used to make life possible on earth, or what really happens to it before the residue is radiated outwards”
The “projections” of the models all assume that there is a balance between input and output energy before they can assess the influence of greenhouse gas increases.

Their current estimate of 2.3Wm-2 (1.33 to 3.33) for the radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gas increases since 1750 is well below the admitted uncertainties of this model. The maximum forcing “expected” in 2100 of nearly 8Wm-2 is still smaller than the possible extra that could come from the model.  It is therefore worthless as a means of estimating the influence of increases in greenhouse gases. It does not seem to be worth arguing about different values of “climate sensitivity” as they are all much less than the uncertainties.

The  models do not estimate “natural variability” but this is invariably invoked whenever, as now, that the models fail. Nobody seems to have understood that “warming” could just as easily be attributed either to natural variability or to  a change in the estimates of parameters in the above diagram.

 This is enough for now. Further information as we go......

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

Russia Busts Greenpeace

By Alan Caruba  from Warning Signs

I must confess I had a moment of schadenfreud—taking pleasure in another’s misfortune—when I read that, in late September, the Russians had seized the Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, and towed it to the port of Murmansk after Greenpeace personnel had boarded a Russian oil platform, “Priraslomnaya”, in the Pechora Sea.

Russia called the thirty people arrested “pirates” and, if found guilty, they face sentences from ten to fifteen years in prison. Five of them were Russians while the others came from some seventeen nations, including the United States.

Greenpeace is best known for its propaganda tactics, the latest being the trespass of the oil platform, but in 2009, while Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior was docked in Copenhagen, the tables were turned when members of CFACT, a U.S. think tank devoted to debunking environmental claims, boarded it and, while distracting the crew with donuts, hung a banner that obscured the word “Rainbow” with “Propaganda” turning it into the Propaganda Warrior.

A CFACT spokesman said that the piracy charged seemed too severe, but thought lesser charges should apply. Even Russian President Putin said that piracy did not apply, but their actions were reckless. “We can’t help but appreciate the irony. Greenpeace conducts ongoing campaigns for greater government control over individuals. In Russia, they may get a taste of where that leads.”

Greenpeace has incurred the wrath of many with its aggressive, attention-grabbing tactics and, in 1985 French Special Forces sunk the original Rainbow Warrior when it was docked in New Zealand. Ultimately, an international court ruled that France had to pay Greenpeace $8 million. More recently, Greenpeace campaigners who scaled the chimney of the UK’s Kingsnorth coal power plant were acquitted.

While the incidents Greenpeace stages are intended to draw attention to it, most people are unaware of how large the organization is. It has offices in more than forty nations as it pursues its campaigns devoted to global warming, deforestration, overfishing, commercial whaling, genetic engineering, and anti-nuclear issues.

One of its founders, Patrick Moore, became a critic of what he deemed the organization’s scare tactics and disinformation campaigns. In 2005 he said that the environmental movement had “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism” and was devoted to inventing “doom and gloom scenarios” to advance an agenda that is essentially opposed to many scientific and technological advances that enhance the lives of billions around the world.

Greenpeace says it depends on 2.9 million individual supporters and on foundation grants, but a recent article by Nick Nichols, a retired crisis management expert and author of “Rules for Corporate Warriors”, examined the cost of tax exemptions noting that “three tax-exempt Greenpeace organizations in the U.S. reported $39.2 million in revenue and $20.6 million in assets in 2011.” Other environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council also were worth millions and were exempted from taxes.

Consider the furor of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party movement groups seeking a similar tax exemption, it tells you just how agenda-driven the IRS is when it comes to groups that claim they are charitable or educational. Nichols notes that both New Zealand and Canada have stripped Greenpeace of its charity status.

While Greenpeace and comparable Green organizations enjoy tax exemptions that would otherwise generate millions, they are also engaged in a wide range of activities intended to undermine its economic welfare. From opposing coal mining to nuclear energy, these groups do everything they can to deny Americans the benefits of affordable and vital sources of energy. They continue to claim that global warming is going to destroy the planet despite the growing body of information that demonstrates it is a hoax.

Patrick Moore recently lead a demonstration outside the Greenpeace office in Toronto, Canada, regarding the Greenpeace opposition to genetically modified rice, known as Golden Rice for its vitamin A content.

His banner read “Greenpeace’s Crime Against Humanity—Eight million Children Dead.” For lack of sufficient vitamin A, the World Health Organization estimates that up to 500,000 become blind every year  and half of them die within a year of becoming blind as the result of this nutritional deficiency that affects an estimated 250 million pre-school children worldwide.

Russia has provided an object lesson in how to deal with these Green “warriors” on oil, coal, and nuclear energy, and other issues that harm people. Having saved Obama from complete humiliation when he proposed bombing Syria, Russia now demonstrates how to deal with propagandists whose love for the Earth excludes the humanity that calls it home.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Stop Wasting Money on the IPCC

Image: Jo Nova
Stop Wasting Money on the IPCC

Media Statement by Viv Forbes
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition.
2nd October 2013

Any quotes taken directly from this statement may be attributed to Mr Forbes

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian government to stop wasting money on IPCC activities – “no submissions, no delegates, no funds”.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the repeated failures of the IPCC theories and climate models shows that the money spent on these activities would be better spent on disaster-proofing public infrastructure – “whatever we spend on IPCC activities is too much”.


The science debate is over. They lost.

Decades ago the IPCC proposed a theory that Earth’s temperature is controlled by the 0.04% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This theory was used to make predictions by at least 73 computer models.

Thirty years of observations has proven every prediction wrong.

Therefore their theory is wrong. That is how science works.

Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew have switched to politics.

The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a faceless committee of international bureaucrats for their government masters, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.

Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.

They will lose again. It is time to stop wasting money on a lost cause.


Viv Forbes,
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia

For those who would like to read more on how sanity is being restored, one by one.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; 

it will be seen that they go mad in herds, 
while they only recover their senses slowly, 
and one by one."
Charles Mackay

* * * * * * * * * *
(Editor) See also from  Judith A. Curry - Chair and Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.
"The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs"

* * * * * * * * * *

The Last Word.

Ford Develops Green Car
It runs on Naturally Occurring Organic Compounds

DEARBORN, MI—The Ford Motor Company announced on Wednesday that it has developed a new SUV that will be powered exclusively by gasoline, a 100% reliable, oil-based energy source. “We’re very proud to introduce the Ford Petrola, a vehicle that runs on a specialized fuel derived almost entirely from naturally occurring organic compounds,” said Raj Nair, the company’s vice president of global product development. “Whether you’re commuting to work or heading out for a little adventure on the weekend, just fill the Petrola with gasoline and you’ll be ready to go. Best of all, this pure hydrocarbon fuel source is currently available at more than 100,000 filling stations across America.” Nair also noted that prototypes of the new vehicle have been able to travel more than 300 miles on a single “power charge” of gasoline.

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.  

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

Please make sure we are an allowed sender or your spam checker will stop us and you may never know. Please let us know when you change your email address or if you have not heard from us in ages.