The weasel words hide the fact that many eminent scientists in the field dispute the balkanised position. Political bodies should not be mistaken for scientific ones.
Q2: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists?[hide]
A2: Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws To wit:
Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell") and companies.
Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored. Similarly, Steve Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous". The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list
Many of the 'scientists' who contribute to the IPCC (and there aren't many) are not scientists. The reports themselves are flawed and include discredited results.
A3: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend.
Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.
In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones said that from 1995 to the present, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.
There is substantially more CO2 in 2011 than in 1998, but instead of heat we see relative cooling.
Q4: How can we say global warming is real when it's been so cold in such-and-such a place?[hide]
A4: This is why it is termed "global warming", not "(region X) warming". Even then, what rises is the average temperature over time - that is, the temperature will fluctuate up and down within the overall rising trend. To give an idea of the relevant time scales, the standard averaging period specified by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) is 30 years. Accordingly, the WMO defines climate change as "a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer)."
Likewise the heating is not statistically significant.
Q5: Can't the increase of CO2 be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?[hide]
A5: While these claims are popular among global warming skeptics, including academically-trained ones, they are incorrect. This is known from any of several perspectives:
Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.
If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, we would expect their carbon dioxide concentration to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or more accurately, less basic).
Humans contribute some 3% to atmospheric CO2
Q6: I think the article is missing some things, or has some things wrong. Can I change it?[hide]
A6: Yes. Keep in mind that your points need to be based on documented evidence from the peer-reviewed literature, or other information that meets standards of verifiability, reliability, and no original research. If you do not have such evidence, more experienced editors may be able to help you find it (or confirm that such evidence does not exist). You are welcome to make such queries on the article's talk page but please keep in mind that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums that welcome general discussions of global warming, but the article talk page is not such a forum.
It won't happen. Some editors from a small number available will remove any material questioning the voracity of the myth of Global Warming. Then they will slime you, calling you names dependent on what seems most damaging.
There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like Global Warming Map, are static meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get," meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations. Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.
Also the graphs might damage the claims, like graphs showing ice levels in the poles.
A8: That the temperature is rising is an observation (more specifically, the summary of many observations). The explanation for this observation is ascientific theory. This is different from the common use of "theory" to mean a guess or supposition. A scientific theory is a coherent set of explanations that is compatible with the known observations, that allows predictions to be made, and that has a number of other properties (see the above linked article). A theory that makes verifiable predictions that turn out to be correct gains credibility. Strictly speaking, science does not prove anything. A theory is the best it can provide.
The observations have been falsified. They involve discredited ground level measures which have been corrupted over time.
Q9: Does methane cause more warming than CO2?[hide]
A9: It's true that methane is more potent molecule for molecule. But there's far less of it in the atmosphere, so the total effect is smaller. The atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2 (on the order of 100 years). So methane tracks current emissions, while CO2accumulates in the atmosphere over long periods. For details see the greenhouse gas and global warming potential articles.
Q10: Wasn't Greenland much warmer during the period of Norse settlement?[hide]
A10: Greenland was not significantly warmer during the period of Norse settlement. While much of Greenland was and remains under a large ice shelf, the areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse were coastal areas with fjords that, to this day, remain quite green. Please see the following images for reference:
Beautiful pictures, hiding the fact that some settlements have been made uninhabitable by encroaching cold
Q11: Are the IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?[hide]
A11: The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties.
Of the five known people, some are not scientists at all.
Q12: Hasn't global sea ice increased over the last 30 years?[hide]
A12: Measurements show that it has not. Claims that global sea ice has stayed the same or increased are a result of cherry picking two datapoints to compare, while ignoring the real (strongly statistically significant) downward trend in measurements of global sea ice.
Measurements show that it has. Part of the graphs and pictures that are not part of the article.
Q13: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming?[hide]
A13: They weren't – see the article on global cooling. An article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has reviewed the scientific literature at that time, and found that even during the 1970s the prevailing scientific concern was over warming. The common misperception that cooling was the main concern during the 1970s arose from a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press. (Newsweek eventually apologized for having misrepresented the state of the science in the 1970s.)
They were, which is why many news articles were written about it and many governments made provision and plans for the outcome.
Q14: Doesn't water vapor cause 98% of the greenhouse effect?[hide]
A14: Water vapour is indeed a major greenhouse gas, contributing about 36% to 70% (not 98%) of the total greenhouse effect. But water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days), compared with decades to centuries for greenhouse gases like CO2 or nitrous oxide. As a result it is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, which globally maintains a nearly constant relative humidity. Rising temperatures caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases therefore will increase the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse effect. This is an example of a positive feedback. Thus, while water vapour does not act as driver of climate change, it does amplify existing trends.
Temperature may be a function of gravitational forces acting on the Earth, rather than direct sunlight, hence the molten core. In one recent paper sunlight accounted at most for less than 10% of the atmospheric temperature.
Q15: Is the fact that other solar system bodies are warming evidence for a common cause (i.e. the sun)?[hide]
A15: While some solar system bodies show evidence of local or global climate change, there is no evidence for a common cause of warming.
A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change. This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.
Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates. Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit - it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how our warmest summer temperatures occur a month or two after the longest day of the year). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.
Q19: Is an increase in global temperature of, say, 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) important?[hide]
A19: The nearest concept that is relevant is that there are ranges to which species and human society have adapted. Though it may not sound like much, a global temperature rise of 6 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees Celsius) is huge in climate terms. For example, the sea level rise it produced would flood coastal cities around the world.
Earth climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e., the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and exisiting land use. In short, the main problem is not the absolute temperature, but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate, and the second order-effects to human societies. The IPCC AR4WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.
An increase in the foreseeable future would be less than 0.5 of a degree, based on discredited modelling over 50 years
Q20: Why are certain proposals discarded, deleted, or ignored? Who is Scibaby?[hide]
A20:Scibaby is a long term abusivesock-master (or coordinated group of sock masters) who has created 920 confirmed sock puppets, another 215suspected socks, and probably many untagged or unrecognized ones. This page lists some recent creations. His modus operandi has changed over time, but includes proposing reasonably worded additions on the talk page that only on close examination, turn out to be irrelevant, misinterpreted, or give undue weight to certain aspects, apparently with the aim of wasting time and/or appearing as the innocent victim of Wikipedia's alleged AGW cabal. Scibaby is banned, and Scibaby socks are blocked as soon as they are identified. Some editors silently revert his additions, per WP:DENY, while others still assume good faith even for likely socks and engage them.
This is an example of how people have been smeared.
Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?[hide]
A21: There are many peer-reviewed papers published every month in scientific journals such as Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Climate and others. We can't include all of them, but the article does include references to individual papers where there is consensus that they best represent the state of climatology. This is in accordance with the "due weight" principle (WP:WEIGHT) of the Neutral point of view policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" principle (WP:INFO) of the What Wikipedia is not policy.
This is an example of how people have been smeared.
Q22: Why does the article define "global warming" as a recent phenomenon? Hasn't the planet warmed and cooled before?[hide]
A22: Yes, the planet has warmed and cooled before. However, the term "global warming" has lost most of its generic meaning and is used nearly exclusively to refer to the recent episode, often even directly connected with the greenhouse effect. See e.g. Meriam-Webster, Encarta, OED. Similarly, "global warming" is used nearly exclusively to refer to the current episode in the academic literature.. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the term in this most common meaning. Climate change deals with the more general concept.
^J. L. Elliot, A. Ates, B. A. Babcock, A. S. Bosh, M. W. Buie, K. B. Clancy, E. W. Dunham, S. S. Eikenberry, D. T. Hall, S. D. Kern, S. K. Leggett, S. E. Levine, D.-S. Moon, C. B. Olkin, D. J. Osip, J. M. Pasachoff, B. E. Penprase, M. J. Person, S. Qu, J. T. Rayner, L. C. Roberts, Jr, C. V. Salyk, S. P. Souza, R. C. Stone, B. W. Taylor, D. J. Tholen, J. E. Thomas-Osip, D. R. Ticehurst and L. H. Wasserman (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere".Nature (424): 165-168. doi:doi:10.1038/nature01762.
Care – core – cure. One little letter makes all the difference. To really care, before promoting a cure, understand the core.
You share our inherent human care for Earth and want to stop pollution. Yet efforts to clean Earth seem bogged in confusion from wildly contradictory predictions of 'climate crisis'. Supposed experts openly disagree yet we're told there's universal agreement humans are causing 'the end of life as we know it'. That turmoil triggers a mixture of 'climate alarm', fear, guilt, anger, hopelessness, apathy or doubt.
We can rediscover clarity, hope and support for Earth by understanding how alarm and confusion were created and how that actually increases pollution. You may think global warming is as serious as pollution and worry that questioning alarm will enable pollution. Yet they're different. We need be even more concerned about climate alarm because when buried by ignorance other core problems grow.
When we're willing to re-evaluate what we've been told we replace fear, guilt and external control with reality, hope and freedom. Appreciating Nature's integrity brings security and hope for all peoples and our planet. We need to let Earth speak.
Discover climate reality and environmental credibility in five steps to freedom and care. First, explore alarm by understanding what proponents of alarm are saying. Then listen to Earth speak through real-world science in section 2 - Science Facts & Futility. Then assess for yourself the impacts of what government politicians are advising - economically, morally and in terms of personal freedom and national sovereignty.
Understanding will bring reassurance on climate for personal peace and security.
Throughout this web site, red text represents the money trail. Discover for yourself who's eyeing your money.
For quick skimming, sub-headings convey simple summaries. Reading the text as needed provides deeper understanding. Check the links for verification or more information.
Should our environmental and energy policies be determined by lobbyists and special interest groups or by science? Explore this site to discover an answer for yourself and then take informed action.
A summary of UN IPCC and Australian corruption of climate science is available here.
Not 4,000 scientists, just five reviewers of unknown qualifications.
The government admits its climate policy is based on reports by the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC. The UN IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd repeatedly stated that 4,000 scientists claim global warming was caused by human production of carbon dioxide, CO2. Yet IPCC figures themselves reveal only five (5) UN IPCC reviewers endorsed the claim - and there's doubt they were even scientists. That's a blatant falsity from the top of the UN's climate body spread by the very top of the Australian government. Refer to McLean's workgiving access to UN data on UN IPCC reporting processes. And towww.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
In its latest report (2007) the UN IPCC's sole chapter claiming detection of warming and human causation has no evidence. It contains no specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence for its false claim. It disguises its reliance on unvalidated computer models whose projections proven completely wrong. Buried separately in the report, Table 2.11 admits that 13 of 16 factors driving radiative forcing factors have low or very low levels of confidence. One factor is claimed to have a high level of understanding yet real-world science shows that is false.
Each of the UN IPCC's four reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007) relies on a falsity. That falsity was then the basis of the UN IPCC's worldwide media campaign inciting unfounded fear.
UN IPCC peer-review processes have been corrupted, at times completely bypassed and even prevented. IPCC reports have not been scientifically peer-reviewed. UN IPCC reports rely on data specifically kept from scientific review and public scrutiny. Prominent UN IPCC 'scientists' prevented peer-review. That automatically disqualifies their material from being considered scientific because it has not been verified and cannot be verified.
All three (3) temperature databases used by the UN IPCC are ground-based and proven to be corrupted, misleading and inaccurate. Despite their core forecast of higher atmospheric temperatures, prominent UN IPCC officials refuse to use reliable atmospheric data measurements that show no net warming and no ongoing warming.
The UN's climate body deliberately omitted 90,000 reliable measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels taken in the last 180 years. These show recent past atmospheric CO2 levels up to 40% above current levels.
The UN IPCC, Al Gore and prominent Australian academics gloss over real-world scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause.
Download 'Summary Findings' to discover UN corruption of climate science for yourself. The first six pages highlight the direct corruption. Skim them by reading the orange highlights. Then, as needed, read the detail. www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Notes for web site.pdf If your browser has difficulty opening some of that document's links longer than one line in length, please use links presented at the bottom of this page.
UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer, Dr Vincent Gray (PhD, Cambridge) has around 60 years real-world experience in science, including the last 21 years in climate. He has reviewed all four UN IPCC reports - 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.
The UN IPCC's own data reveal that he has provided by far the most comprehensive and detailed reviews of the UN IPCC's chapter 9 and its whole report. His reviews are provided atwww.conscious.com.au.
Dr Gray exposed the lack of credible evidence of significant warming. His reviews reveal that the UN IPCC has no real-world evidence for its claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.
Despite his enormously significant comments they were not even acknowledged by the UN IPCC chapter Review Editors, including Australia's David Karoly. That is unlike true scientific peer-review in which authors are accountable for explaining their response to each reviewer's comments. Not so in the UN IPCC.
He reveals that the UN IPCC downplays the known importance of solar cycles and El Nino Southern Oscillation Index as drivers of Earth's climate and global temperature.
Here's his article exposing the UN IPCC's corruption of language to falsely imply evidence that the UN IPCC does not have. The UN IPCC's core claim of human causation of warming are baseless and false: TheTriumphOfDoublespeak.pdf
The UN IPCC's political Summary for Policy Makers was written and given to national governments and media before the science chapters were written. UN IPCC guidelines state that where there is conflict between the science report and the summary for policy makers, the summary takes precedence. Thus science reports are modified to reflect the political summaries. As Professor Ball writes on page 125 of Slaying the Sky Dragon, quote:
"It started it early. The main report is then reviewed to make sure it 'aligns' with the summary. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter."
On pages 126-127 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' Ball provides an example, quote:
"Chapter 8 didn't have specific evidence of a human signal. The original draft submitted by Santer read,
"Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: "When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?" In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, "We do not know."
This was changed by Santer to accommodate the SPM to read,
"The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate." 26 Notice this is "statistical evidence" not actual evidence, but is part of the growing desire to 'blame' humans.
Compare it with the comment in the 1990 IPCC report.
"...it is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to (an) enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available."
By the time of the 2001 report the politics and hysteria had risen to a level that demanded a clear signal. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence." [End of Ball's quote]
Even UN IPCC Lead Authors admit to the UN IPCC's political motives: www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead elephants.pdf Pages 3-7 and 11. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary provides interviews of UN IPCC scientists, including Lead Authors. 'The Deniers' by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon interviews leading UN IPCC scientists exposing UN IPCC corruption. These include Christopher Landsea and Paul Reiter international experts on storms and insect-borne diseases respectively.
In its 2007 report, the UN IPCC's sole chapter claiming human warming and attributing it to human production of CO2 (chapter 9) contains no evidence for its claim. In fabricating the report, the Lead Authors contradicted UN IPCC guidelines.
McLean (see above for links) states that the science Working Group One's (WG1) sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide (chapter 9) had two (2) co-coordinating Lead Authors, seven lead authors and 44 contributing authors.
85% of the authors of the sole chapter attributing warming to humans were not appointed by the IPCC but merely by the 9 appointed authors. UN IPCC data itself confirms that they formed a tightly knit cabal lacking independence and accountability.
Chapter 9's Lead Authors breached UN IPCC guidelines by selecting authors from a very narrow background. According to UN IPCC guidelines, Lead Authors are responsible for ensuring a wide-range of authors from diverse backgrounds worldwide. Yet this core chapter was written by a tightly knit cabal. There is overwhelming influence from four (4) institutes huddled around the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the core of the Climategate scandal. They are dominated by computer modelers and present no real-world evidence for their claim of human warming.They appear enmeshed in conflicts of financial interest.
The authors of chapter 9 rely immensely on their own papers for their conclusions that contradict real-world science.
The 2007 report's chapter 9 was apparently built on the equivalent sole chapter in the 2001 report - chapter 12. David Karoly was Lead Author of chapter 12 in 2001 and yet was allowed to be Review Editor of chapter 9 in 2007.
The tightly knit cabal of authors who wrote the UN IPCC 2007 report's sole chapter (9) claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide were so closely inter-related that independence was lost.
Refer to Wegman himself who investigated UN IPCC processes for the USA Congress. For succinct summaries including quotes from Wegman refer to Ball below and to McLean's work above. www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf Ball's chapter 11 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' by an international team of authors led by John O'Sullivan.
'Scientists' at the core of the UN IPCC's temperature fabrications have refused to allow access to data. That should immediately disqualify their claims as unfounded. According to Climategate e-mails, principal 'scientists' have threatened to destroy, misrepresent or hide data rather than allow it to be investigated. When this occurred in the face of Freedom of Information laws and involved breaches of the law, people saw there's something fishy.
When 'scientists' breach scientific process, their work is no longer scientific. It is unscientific and needs to be discarded. That universities protect and condone such behaviour and misrepresentation destroys faith in academia and exposes likely systemic corruption. Are universities driven by fear of losing government research grants?
University support for unscientific behaviour by scientists misrepresenting science is occurring in Australia. That is abuse of science, corruption of policy and waste of taxpayer funds. When academics and/or their university benefit, is it not fraud? * Dictionary definition of fraud: presenting something as it is not to secure unfair gain.
The so-called 'settled science' was settled before IPCC science started
At the United Nations Environmental Program's (UNEP's) 1980 conference in Villach, Austria, government scientists from around the world refused to sign the UN's claim of global warming due to human production of CO2stating 'no evidence'.
For it's next conference in 1985, the UN learned its lesson: it selected delegates who signed its claim, despite no evidence. The conference produced a report reportedly written mostly by one man, Bert Bolin. He was prominent in the UN Environmental Program's corrupted climate campaign.
On March 24, 1988, 'Dagens Nyheter' Sweden's largest daily newspaper published an article written by Swede Bert Bolin and Mans Lonnroth. In the article entitled 'Introduce a tax on carbon dioxide' (Infor skat pa koldioxid) he said, without supporting evidence, quote:"Continued release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is an ecological experiment which is ethically indefensible. A specific tax on carbon dioxide needs to be considered." See original article in Swedish • English translation
Bolin's article introduced many false scares that became a standard part of climate alarm propaganda - sea levels, irreversible catastrophic temperature rise, ...
UN climate corruption started with UNEP in the 1970's
Maurice Strong was appointed UNEP's first Secretary General, in 1972.
McLean shows UNEP laid the foundation and template for political distortion of climate and science. Using quotes from senior UNEP and UN IPCC officials, McLean reveals how UNEP's misrepresentations were later honed and extended by the UN IPCC.
Professor Tim Ball provides a comprehensive yet succinct summary of the UN's corruption of climate science in chapter 9 of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'.
Deepen understanding by checking the references for yourself and visitingwww.conscious.com.au. Note McLean's work that presents UN IPCC data on its own reporting processes. The data was obtained from the UN IPCC itself.
To give the corruption of science and politics a life of its own the original bureaucrats in the UN merely needed to create systems to align behaviours. Then, once people are engaged they can tend to justify their actions. Then they become enmeshed in the system and unconsciously justify their actions. That's the human condition.
Once established, all that's needed is for people to fear the withdrawal of grants or research or to see an opportunity to move along in a new and seemingly exciting field. The lure of money assists bankers. The lure of power and fear of rejection lures politicians.
It is significant that many of the scientists and lay people standing up to the government and the UN are retired.
Aligning beneficiaries with their self-interests combines with lack of data to produce flexible positions. It started 1974's supposed forecast imminent, irreversible catastrophic global cooling blamed on particulates from burning fuels containing carbon.
After 1976's so-called 'Great Pacific Climate Shift' when global atmospheric temperatures rose slightly in one year (see this web site's Section 2, The Science & Futility) global cooling morphed into global warming due to human production of carbon dioxide from fuels containing carbon.
With subtle repetition, global warming due to human CO2 production was twisted intoglobal warming due to carbon. That was later morphed into climate change due to carbon and enabled any weather event to be touted as proof. That is now morphing intoclimate disruption due to carbon. All this occurred using subtle propaganda without any supporting real-world evidence.
Prominent academics fail to provide real-world evidence yet collect government funding. Are they polluting science? Decide for yourself
All eight of Australia's publicly prominent academics promoting human causation of global warming failed to provide real-world evidence of their claim. They are: - Professor Tim Flannery, BA English, MSc, PhD on evolution of macropods - Professor Ross Garnaut, economist - Professor Matthew England, mathematician and computer modeler - Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeler - Professor Will Steffen, chemical engineer, PhD inorganic chemistry - Professor Kurt Lambeck, geophysicist - Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, biologist - Professor David Karoly, meteorologist, UN IPCC Lead Author (2001), Review Editor (2007), writer of draft Summary for Policy Makers (2007).
All eight receive funds directly from the government or are employees of institutions receiving government grants. All refused requests to disclose their funding.
All prominently publicly advocate humans caused global warming. One leads the push for artificially raising energy prices. Two are paid members of the government's Climate Commission, including the Chief Commissioner. Three others are members, presumably paid, of the Climate Commission's Science Advisory Panel.
All receive government funding or are employed by institutes funded by government to research global warming. Yet none can provide any specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused global warming.
In their responses to Malcolm Roberts' requests for real-world evidence of human causation of global warming, Professors Karoly, Flannery, England, Pitman, Steffen and Hoegh-Guldberg have failed to provide any evidence.
Garnaut and Lambeeck have not replied to Roberts' requests sent by Registered Post (with Delivery Confirmation) followed by e-mail.
Why is the most prominent spreading falsities in his own field of meteorology? Professor David Karoly has been a UN IPCC Lead Author of the UN IPCC 2001 report's sole chapter (chapter 12) claiming warming and attributing it to human production of carbon dioxide. In doing so he apparently contravened the UN IPCC's own guidelines for Lead Authors (Refer above to McLean's work presenting UN IPCC data on its own reporting processes).
David Karoly was a Review Editor of the equivalent sole chapter (9) in the following 2007 report even though it reportedly built upon the 2001 report's equivalent sole chapter (12).
He drafted the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. Yet since November 2009 his responses to Malcolm Roberts' requests for specific, scientifically measured real-world evidence of human warming have failed to provide any evidence. Why?
Professor Flannery has twice been publicly challenged by Malcolm Roberts to provide evidence of human causation of global warming. Twice he failed.
Dr Wes Allen has released what is the first known detailed review of Tim Flannery's book 'The Weather Makers'. Dr Allen's review reveals that 307 statements in Tim Flannery's book created 577 problems. These have been classified into *:
To see Dr Allen's complete analysis you can download Dr Allen's spreadsheet analysis of 'The Weather Makers'.
Yet on the basis of 'The Weather Makers', Professor Flannery scared many young adults into climate alarm, garnered his 2007 award 'Australian of the Year', rocketed to fame, launched a publishing career, became a darling of the media and especially the government's ABC network and scuttled the government on climate in 2007, an election year.
With few exceptions his falsities have never been publicly scrutinised by major politicians or journalists.
To discover and assess for yourself, Dr Allen's book entitled 'The Weather Makers Re-Examined' is available from Irenic Publications.
Over a period of 18 months, Tim Flannery's public descriptions of coal changed from 'antique''carbon catastrophe' as "dangerous as asbestos and nuclear power" and "as expensive as solar panels" yet a "cost-effective and a solution that cannot be questioned". September 22, 2008, ABC-TV, quote: "The world is going to need coal - particularly China and India" two significant markets for Australian coal. Is this scientific logic?
This appears to be use of the Delphi technique gone mad.
Professor Ross Garnaut (economist) has been prominently advocating that artificial increases in energy prices be imposed on people. Yet his 2008 Garnaut Review's chapter 2 on the science admits there is no evidence of human causation. He still has no scientific evidence yet recommends increasing prices. www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter2.pdf
Professor Garnaut failed to respond to the request sent him by Registered Post and e-mail. Yet his team in the Department of Climate Change revealed remarkable ignorance of science in its reply stating that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yet science is about facts not opinion.
At the Climate Commission meeting in Ipswich on Thursday, April 7th, 2011 he tried to answer a request from Malcolm Roberts for specific real-world evidence that human production of CO2 caused global warming. He failed to provide any causal relationship. In response to a clarifying question Professor Steffen confirmed he presented ground-based temperatures - rather than atmospheric. He used Michael Mann's discredited 'hockey stick temperature graph' in his presentation. climatecommission.gov.au/files/2011/04/Final-CC-forum-support-slides_5-April_WS.pdf
Comments by the Inter-Academy Council (IAS), UN IPCC Expert Science Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray and many scientists confirm that there is no scientific or statistical basis for Professor Steffen's eighth (last) slide's conclusion that, quote: "It is very likely that human emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, have caused most of this warming."
Without substantiation, at Ipswich he later verbally claimed 95% confidence, implying a level of certainty that is unfounded and contradicted by the IAS, scientists and statisticians.
In response to a question on his fifth slide showing atmospheric CO2 levels, he avoided Roberts' request to discuss the ocean's impact on prominent seasonal variation in CO2levels.
He failed to prove that human production of carbon dioxide caused warming. He contradicted the real-world science by claiming correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature over many recent decades.
In answer to a separate question from the audience and in reference to the Oregon petition list containing over 31,000 scientists who signed a petition refuting the Kyoto protocol, Professor Wil Steffen said, quote: "I know a little bit about this petition. It's been going around for quite a while. You need to differentiate types of scientists, for example I'm not competent to comment on aero-science or inorganic (in organic????) chemistry or something like that. That's further ???? afield. So if you go through that list of 31 thousand scientists I couldn't recognise any that I recognise as publishing in the range of literature that covers climate science. So the issue there is that list really doesn't carry any weight at all in the credible scientific community. They don't publish, they don't go to the conferences we do, they're not (interjection) – would you let me finish - so I think the issue there is that the credibility of the scientists involved, you earn that, you keep that by publishing in the peer-review literature. That's the quality control mechanism that we use in any area of science uses. So that is not in my view a good criteria to judge what the scientific community says. You must simply go into the literature in the field to understand it."
Perhaps Wil Steffen needs to do some checking. The petitioners include: Professor Frederick Seitz, Professor Fred Singer, Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Paul Reiter, Dr Vincent Gray. These were found easily and quickly by searching for names of some well-known climate scientists. www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm www.petitionproject.org
Professor Karoly was a UN IPCC Lead Author (2001) and Review Editor (2007) of the UN IPCC's sole chapter on detection of warming and attribution to human production of CO2. He drafted the UN IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policymakers later given to national governments and media. Its influence on media and on public opinion and political agenda was strong. How did he not know such basic information? Why is he publicly broadcasting falsities?
All eight of these academics advocating human causation of warming have failed to provide evidence. Yet all are paid by the government and publicly advocate global warming caused by human production of carbon dioxide.
Note the real-world data on sea levels as measured and published by the Queensland government's Maritime Safety Queensland. It shows that during the last 15 years Australian sea level rose at the rate of 0.3 mm per year. Over a hundred years that would be 3.0 centimetres, around one inch.
He has repeatedly failed to provide real-world evidence of his claim that global humans caused warming.
Yet five (5) of these professors are involved with the government's Climate Commission - Tim Flannery as Chief Commissioner on a salary of reportedly $180,000 for a part time job expected to last eight months, Will Steffen as Commissioner and David Karoly, Matthew England and Andy Pitman as members of the Climate Commission's Science Advisory Panel. A sixth, economist Ross Garnaut is the government's prominent analyst, reviewer and advocate on science and economics of global warming.
The backlash starts on universities falsely promoting or condoning climate falsities
Repercussion on universities has started. Two wealthy donors have advised the University of Queensland Senate that they have stopped donating to UQ science and advised their wealthy colleagues against donating to UQ science. Their decision was based on what they see as the poor standard of science and UQ's promotion of falsities on global warming.
Is Government funding driving CSIRO and BOM climate misrepresentations?
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Australia's once-respected CSIRO have apparently inconsistently altered data in unscientific ways. Could that be to maintain their government funding?http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/ http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
Scientist Warwick Hughes is a pioneer in the field of exposing UN IPCC falsities. His persistent challenges contributed to exposing the Climategate scandal. He has found many deficiencies in BOM methods and data. www.warwickhughes.com/climate
The heads of CSIRO have no evidence of human causation yet publicly imply humans caused warming
CSIRO, Australia's Chief Scientist and The Australian Academy of Science all fail to provide evidence of their claim that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.
Malcolm Roberts has asked CSIRO's Chief Executive, Dr Megan Clarke and CSIRO's Group Executive - Environment, Dr Andrew Johnson for evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming. In their responses neither has provided real-world scientific evidence.
In response to Malcolm's Registered Post and e-mail requests of the former Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Penny Sackett, she failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans.
In response to Malcolm's Registered Post and e-mail requests of Professor Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science, he failed to provide any real-world evidence of global warming caused by humans.
All these organisations are funded by the Australian government. They produce glossy reports implying global warming was caused by humans. Yet looking behind the carefully worded text and beautiful pictures, they provide no real-world scientific evidence for their falsely implied claims.
Why does Prime Minister Julia Gillard state repeatedly that there is no reputable scientist who disagrees with the government's stance? On that even her own Chief Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery publicly disagrees with her. There are hundreds of internationally eminent and reputable scientists who disagree and thousands more qualified scientists. These include UN IPCC Lead Authors appalled at the UN IPCC's corruption of science.
During the 2007 election campaign, as Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard claimed to be strong on addressing climate. During the lead up to her replacement after the sacking of Kevin Rudd she advised former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to drop support for his carbon dioxide 'trading' scheme. Within months she was then claiming to be strong on climate in the lead up to the next election. Political support for climate is based on polling not science.
We need a Royal Commission into the government's spreading of UN IPCC fraud. A Royal Commission requiring evidence given under oath is essential for reinstating science as the basis of public policy. True, objective science based on real-world evidence needs to be resuscitated.
The corruption of climate science spreads to other areas. Why did, for example, the release of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on October 8th, 2010 contain no scientific references yet claim to be based on science? Reputable scientists claim publicly that the report contradicts or misrepresents the science.
Controls on farmers to prevent land clearing are controls that remove private property rights. They were enacted by the NSW state ALP government at the urging of the Howard federal Liberal government. That enabled the Liberal government to claim Australia was meeting its 'commitments' under the UN's Kyoto 'treaty'. Farmers paid dearly and against their will for a politically driven agenda to benefit politicians electorally.
The state stole farmers' property rights and freedom.
Land clearing legislation in Queensland has already been passed on faulty science to the detriment of the environment.
As the corruption of science by politics spreads, it will likely kill more people. The UN's corruption of science has already cost the lives of an estimated more than 30 million people. Their agonising deaths due to malaria could have been avoided had the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) not rushed the banning of DDT in the 1970's prior. The banning was reportedly politically motivated and completely contradicted the science.The UN's own World Health Organisation (WHO) resumed recommending DDT in 2004. www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_Part 3.pdf
That episode alone puts the UN in the league of Earth's worst mass-murderers - Hitler, Mao and Stalin.
The core, the UN's climate body is rotten. It's rotten to the core.
In his farewell address as President, Dwight Eisenhower said: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
While Eisenhower's warning needs to be needed, the UN has shown that it took over science and corrupted it as a means to achieve political goals.
The benefit is that people in nations whose politicians are spreading unfounded climate alarm or meekly remaining silent on unfounded alarm can now learn how fear and guilt are used to manipulate people. Consciousness of that and of our own emotional and mental vulnerabilities is an essential step in protecting freedom.
The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include: - The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy - Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy - The economics - the impacts of climate policy
For care to be effective, care needs to be informed Please help restore integrity
Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the corruption of science. Help us give honest scientists a public voice. Please donate to help us to achieve these aims.
Our taxes are being used to pollute science. Now they want more tax.
Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.
I'm author of History in a Year by the Conservative Voice aka History of the World in a Year by the Conservative Voice.
I'm the Conservative Voice.
I'm looking to make contact with those who might use my skill.
I have an m-audio mobile pre amp fed by the audiotechnica 2041sp condensor mic pack. Prior to 15/4/06, I'd used a Shure sm-58 that required a nuclear blast to register a sound or the internal mic of my aged imac, which has a penchance to recording my breathing. I also used a Griffin itrip, until the community convinced me it was not hiding my talent as well as the other mics.
I am a Writer and an occasional Math Teacher (Sir, what's the occasion?). I like to sing, having no instrumental talent (cannot even clap in time, and yes, I'm aware singing badly IS obnoxious).
I have performed the finale to Les Miserables before an audience of 500. I have also sung before a similar audience (students, parents) renditions of 'I Will' (Beatles), 'Mr Cairo' (Jon Vangelis) and 'I am Australian' (Seekers). Now I seek another profession because the audience hates me ..